Goodbye Lance

[barny]

Well on the day of the Victoria Cup with the long running inquiry into Smoken Ups positive swab in the inter 2011 final, finally over, and the race awarded to Imthemightyquinn.
We say goodbye to Lance Justice who is quitting the game, just wanted to wish you all the best in your new career.

[A BIT DUSTY]

Well on the day of the Victoria Cup with the long running inquiry into Smoken Ups positive swab in the inter 2011 final, finally over, and the race awarded to Imthemightyquinn.
We say goodbye to Lance Justice who is quitting the game

Gee Barny I hope you don't go off that early when your in bed with your missus , I think you'll find that there has been an appeal lodged, so to say it is finally over is a fair stretch of your imagination . I don't not why but iv'e got the impression your not a Lance Justice fan , Drug induced memories , ugly mug, seems like there is a bit of the old green monster ( jealousy) going on here.

[Gtrain]

Gee as a punter it is so disappointing to consistently have a driver blatantly state what he is going to do. What is even more disappointing is that the more he states what he will do, and does it, the better the price gets. Cant wait til next race. Can he draw a better barrier so that he goes around an even better price? Possibly agaianst a weaker lot also would be nice. The better the barrier, the better the form, the better the price. Keep hating!

[barny]

Gee as a punter it is so disappointing to consistently have a driver blatantly state what he is going to do. What is even more disappointing is that the more he states what he will do, and does it, the better the price gets. Cant wait til next race. Can he draw a better barrier so that he goes around an even better price? Possibly agaianst a weaker lot also would be nice. The better the barrier, the better the form, the better the price. Keep hating!

Keep up son appeals over, Quinn the winner !

[barny]

Mate announced today, appeal dismissed, Quinn the winner! Seeya lancexx

[A BIT DUSTY]

Mate announced today, appeal dismissed, Quinn the winner! Seeya lancexx

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news buddy , but Lance Justice advised on sky last night that an appeal to the N.Z courts was lodged on Friday . So as the saying goes IT AIN'T OVER TILL THE FAT LADY SINGS. I t might be a good thing if I.T.M.Q does end up winning it as on last nights effort it might be the last thing he ever wins.

[aussiebreno]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news buddy , but Lance Justice advised on sky last night that an appeal to the N.Z courts was lodged on Friday . So as the saying goes IT AIN'T OVER TILL THE FAT LADY SINGS. I t might be a good thing if I.T.M.Q does end up winning it as on last nights effort it might be the last thing he ever wins.
This might fly over the head of most posters but while the fat lady may not be singing Joffa already has his gold jacket on!

Seriously, why the hate on ITMQ though? Last night was probably the culmination of a plane trip and 4 runs in as many weeks. Too bad to be true. Freshen up and back on his home turf he will be right.

[Gtrain]

Keep up son appeals over, Quinn the winner !
I got paid my winners ticket. Will get one for last night too. Enjoy the winners photo with SU's arse in the left hand corner. Maybe use the prizemoney to photoshop SU out. Or better yet leave it in there, its as close as hes got to him!

[A BIT DUSTY]

This might fly over the head of most posters but while the fat lady may not be singing Joffa already has his gold jacket on!

Seriously, why the hate on ITMQ though? Last night was probably the culmination of a plane trip and 4 runs in as many weeks. Too bad to be true. Freshen up and back on his home turf he will be right.

No hate hear Brendan was just overstating a little on how bad I.T.M.Q went last night , he sure has had a tough month and he'll definitely bounce back, but I would hate to see him be crowned inter dom champ when he was soundly beaten by the better horse on the day , D.M.S.O in the miniscule amount that showed up in the swab would not have made one bit of difference to the result . The N.Z stipes cleared Justice of administering it meaning they believe someone else has probably by mistake passed it on, surely you would agree it would be a shit of a way to lose such a big race .

[Maorisidol]

"The N.Z stipes cleared Justice of administering it meaning they believe someone else has probably by mistake passed it on..."
How ridiculous the stupid rules the stupid illogical result. "They believe Lance didnt do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
They believe someone else has probably by mistake passed it on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But Lance and Smoken get punished. How stupid.
Where is the NZ Stewards and/or Track Officials running that events responsibility in protecting the Owners horses from being nobbled?

Barny, what do you think of that question? Can you actually give an opinion on the question or will you just rant "drug cheat, guilty ra ra ra..."?
i would seriously like your opinion on that especially when you consider 2 massive points...
1. Last night at the Victoria Cup when Smoken Up won yet another Group 1, ALL horses (in the cup) had their own security guard watching for illegal goings on. why didnt NZ do this for the ID of all races in Australasia for gods sake??????????? Where was the protection for potential nefarious shananigans in NZ?
2. At the NZ Cup the horses weren't even protected on the track, a pissed female streaker ran right onto the track and could have done anything, great security kiwis! Thus proving anyone can even approach horses on the track, so off the track would be very easy, and unlike Melton, NZ provides no protection.
This is where i feel this case will somehow go to a higher court above the "protected" narrow mindedness of kiwi stewards rules.
If i was Lance, based on the stewards ruling, i would sue them for negligence based on not protecting his horse.

[p plater]

spot on Maorisidol but under their rules you are WRONG. The court case ruled that in their opinion the horse was "presented to race" when he lined up at the mobile, so even the streaker would have been Lance's fault under the current rules....go figure.
Even the Control contamination was just a machine error.
Go get them Lance and get the stupid rules changed so that every trainer has a fair chance of defending themselves in NZ. Why do you think they all plead guilty, the new rules are so onesided in the stewards favour they can't lose.

[barny]

I'm configuring my response:)

[Gtrain]

Craig your reading skills are not dissimilar to your ability to acknowledge a great horse and trainer. Non existant. If you can find where I mentioned the word honesty I will pay the interdominion prize purse to G Hall out of my own sky rocket.

[aussiebreno]

I got paid my winners ticket. Will get one for last night too. Enjoy the winners photo with SU's arse in the left hand corner. Maybe use the prizemoney to photoshop SU out. Or better yet leave it in there, its as close as hes got to him!
How have you turned this into a Smoken Up V ITMQ scenario. Hall Snr come out and said that although he will take it that it's no way to win an Inter and he feels sorry for Justice. And for the record ITMQ has beaten Smoken Up past the post eg Cranbourne Cup last year.


No hate hear Brendan was just overstating a little on how bad I.T.M.Q went last night , he sure has had a tough month and he'll definitely bounce back, but I would hate to see him be crowned inter dom champ when he was soundly beaten by the better horse on the day , D.M.S.O in the miniscule amount that showed up in the swab would not have made one bit of difference to the result . The N.Z stipes cleared Justice of administering it meaning they believe someone else has probably by mistake passed it on, surely you would agree it would be a shit of a way to lose such a big race .
Rules are rules this for me isn't a us V them mentality (I think this thread attacking Lance is stupid I've only posted because I thought you were attacking ITMQ) its just playing it by the rules (whether those rules are bad or not).

[barny]

Mate my ability to read is fine, but your objectivity seems askew. Great horse sure, but there must be questions how a simply ordinary horse a few years ago ,has simply continued to improve as he has got older ?
I'm well aware that some do, but at 9 years old and counting, it's hard to fathom.
Many in the nz harnessindustry simply cannot believe this horse has improved so much over this time.
There's a new magic substance out there ,that's common knowledge , perhaps unspoken, but it's only a matter of time before its traceable, and as with blue magic and the subsequent suspensions, suicides and impact on the industry are repeated again.

[Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild]

Mate my ability to read is fine, but your objectivity seems askew. Great horse sure, but there must be questions how a simply ordinary horse a few years ago ,has simply continued to improve as he has got older ?
I'm well aware that some do, but at 9 years old and counting, it's hard to fathom.
Many in the nz harnessindustry simply cannot believe this horse has improved so much over this time.
There's a new magic substance out there ,that's common knowledge , perhaps unspoken, but it's only a matter of time before its traceable, and as with blue magic and the subsequent suspensions, suicides and impact on the industry are repeated again.
So Sting Like a Bee, Mister Feelgood, Blacks a Fake, Karloo Mick are/were on this 'magic' substance then? And I would love a simply ordinary horse like Smoken Up in my stable!

[Gtrain]

Mate my ability to read is fine, but your objectivity seems askew. Great horse sure, but there must be questions how a simply ordinary horse a few years ago ,has simply continued to improve as he has got older ?
I'm well aware that some do, but at 9 years old and counting, it's hard to fathom.
Many in the nz harnessindustry simply cannot believe this horse has improved so much over this time.
There's a new magic substance out there ,that's common knowledge , perhaps unspoken, but it's only a matter of time before its traceable, and as with blue magic and the subsequent suspensions, suicides and impact on the industry are repeated again.
SU won his forst 10 starts in Aus and in his first 12 months of racing out here won a group one and was placed in three others including the Inter dominion. Did he really need to improve to win one? Maybe just needed BAF to leave and he would have won a whole lot more. Very ordinary! My objectivity must be very askew!

[p plater]

Mate my ability to read is fine, but your objectivity seems askew. Great horse sure, but there must be questions how a simply ordinary horse a few years ago ,has simply continued to improve as he has got older ?
I'm well aware that some do, but at 9 years old and counting, it's hard to fathom.
Many in the nz harnessindustry simply cannot believe this horse has improved so much over this time.
There's a new magic substance out there ,that's common knowledge , perhaps unspoken, but it's only a matter of time before its traceable, and as with blue magic and the subsequent suspensions, suicides and impact on the industry are repeated again.

Some things don't get better with age.....take your foolish post for example.

[A BIT DUSTY]

some things don't get better with age.....take your foolish post for example.


amen to that

[teecee]

"The N.Z stipes cleared Justice of administering it meaning they believe someone else has probably by mistake passed it on..."
How ridiculous the stupid rules the stupid illogical result. "They believe Lance didnt do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
They believe someone else has probably by mistake passed it on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But Lance and Smoken get punished. How stupid.
Where is the NZ Stewards and/or Track Officials running that events responsibility in protecting the Owners horses from being nobbled?

Barny, what do you think of that question? Can you actually give an opinion on the question or will you just rant "drug cheat, guilty ra ra ra..."?
i would seriously like your opinion on that especially when you consider 2 massive points...
1. Last night at the Victoria Cup when Smoken Up won yet another Group 1, ALL horses (in the cup) had their own security guard watching for illegal goings on. why didnt NZ do this for the ID of all races in Australasia for gods sake??????????? Where was the protection for potential nefarious shananigans in NZ?
2. At the NZ Cup the horses weren't even protected on the track, a pissed female streaker ran right onto the track and could have done anything, great security kiwis! Thus proving anyone can even approach horses on the track, so off the track would be very easy, and unlike Melton, NZ provides no protection.
This is where i feel this case will somehow go to a higher court above the "protected" narrow mindedness of kiwi stewards rules.
If i was Lance, based on the stewards ruling, i would sue them for negligence based on not protecting his horse.

For those of you who haven't yet worked it out, this posting from the opening few words to the last few words the is TH CLASSIC example of someone who has absolutely no concept of how harness racing in N operates.
A few points for the uneducated...
The stewards DONT make decisions regarding charrges or penalties in NZ. they are the investigators NOT the judges.
I haven't seen a track yet in Australia where I cant hop over the outside fence and find myself easily able to access the main racing track. When we have 3metres fences between the crowd and the horses we really will ned to give serious thought to the concept of the phantom meeting for off course punters only.
No appeal has been lodged with the NZ courts. The decision was released after the courts had closed on Friday and no appeals can be lodged to a decision not released.
While security was provided for the NZ Cup meeting...the only way Smoken up would be there...and he was.. know, I saw him there. Security of the horse is the professional responsibility of the trainer, not the club. This is not only within the rules of HRNZ it is the absolute responsibility of any professional trainer's duty of care. It really grates me when people think the club should provide special security at the cost to the small players when they cant manage the care and attention to their horses their owners pay them for. It doesnt matter how big or small the race, the trainers' responsibilty is to his horses and protecting them from any perceived danger.

[A BIT DUSTY]

For those of you who haven't yet worked it out, this posting from the opening few words to the last few words the is TH CLASSIC example of someone who has absolutely no concept of how harness racing in N operates.
A few points for the uneducated...
The stewards DONT make decisions regarding charrges or penalties in NZ. they are the investigators NOT the judges.
I haven't seen a track yet in Australia where I cant hop over the outside fence and find myself easily able to access the main racing track. When we have 3metres fences between the crowd and the horses we really will ned to give serious thought to the concept of the phantom meeting for off course punters only.
No appeal has been lodged with the NZ courts. The decision was released after the courts had closed on Friday and no appeals can be lodged to a decision not released.
While security was provided for the NZ Cup meeting...the only way Smoken up would be there...and he was.. know, I saw him there. Security of the horse is the professional responsibility of the trainer, not the club. This is not only within the rules of HRNZ it is the absolute responsibility of any professional trainer's duty of care. It really grates me when people think the club should provide special security at the cost to the small players when they cant manage the care and attention to their horses their owners pay them for. It doesnt matter how big or small the race, the trainers' responsibilty is to his horses and protecting them from any perceived danger.

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.

[aussiebreno]

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.
Off topic but in the local rag it was reported last week how a bloke showed up to hearing and his lawyers hadn't bothered to show up!

[Maorisidol]

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!

[teecee]

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.
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 (http://www.jca.org.nz) and the statement of penalty published at www.hrnz.co.nz (http://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.

[p plater]

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!

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

[A BIT DUSTY]

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 (http://www.jca.org.nz) and the statement of penalty published at www.hrnz.co.nz (http://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.

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.

[teecee]

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

[Greg Hando]

Mate my ability to read is fine, but your objectivity seems askew. Great horse sure, but there must be questions how a simply ordinary horse a few years ago ,has simply continued to improve as he has got older ?
I'm well aware that some do, but at 9 years old and counting, it's hard to fathom.
Many in the nz harnessindustry simply cannot believe this horse has improved so much over this time.
There's a new magic substance out there ,that's common knowledge , perhaps unspoken, but it's only a matter of time before its traceable, and as with blue magic and the subsequent suspensions, suicides and impact on the industry are repeated again.

First season of racing as a 4yo 19 starts,11 wins, 3 seconds and 3 3rds
second season of racing 24 sts,10 w, 7 2nds and 1 3rd
Yes a very ordinary horse i'm glad you don't have to pick out a horse for me to buy.

[barny]

Merry Xmas harness racing !! Long may you survive as the only truly honest form of racing :) hahahahahahahaha xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[aussiebreno]

Merry Xmas harness racing !! Long may you survive as the only truly honest form of racing :) hahahahahahahaha xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

School Holidays?

[Maorisidol]

Merry Xmas harness racing !! Long may you survive as the only truly honest form of racing :) hahahahahahahaha xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Maybe if you don't like it so much Craig and are so skeptical and untrusting of the sport,
you go find another!
No sport in the world is 100% clean or 100% without controversy or dodgy characters, take a current "scandal" recently in the papers re Ballroom Dancing...!!!
As long as efforts to eradicate cheats are being made, and they are, it can only be a good thing. But there will always be cheats or those who attempt to cheat in any endeavour, be it sport or even like your mates who cheat you on your little X-Box...

[2minuteman]

School Holidays?
Can't be school holidays,you can't educate idiots!

[p plater]

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

Teecee, thanks for post on this.......However given the things that are "Not critical to their case" what could a trainer do to clear his/her name. Surely the rule does deny natural justice and reasonable doubt, not just this case but any case.

[A BIT DUSTY]

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

Teecee Mate I don't know were your coming up with this legal jargon from , you actually had me thinking you knew what you was talking about . that was until I read this http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/horseracing/justice-quest-smoken-up-disqualification-challenged-20111217-1ozsm.html

Now for you to be right Lance Justice and a whole lot of New Zealand legal minds have got to be wrong . I've got to tell I would have found it very hard to believe that your JCA could not be challenged in the high court as you stated. The high court is not named for the height of the building it's because it is the highest court in the legal system.

[p plater]

If Teecee is correct then how lucky is David Waite http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=94626 that he trains in Australia

[gutwagon]

@ A Bit Dusty, Don't believe everything you read in the paper . The first part of that story in the "Brisbane Times" says SU was disqualified on Friday which is wrong, he was disqualified back in October, the trainers penalty was handed out on Friday. So I wouldn't trust the rest of the story to be correct !

[A BIT DUSTY]

@ A Bit Dusty, Don't believe everything you read in the paper . The first part of that story in the "Brisbane Times" says SU was disqualified on Friday which is wrong, he was disqualified back in October, the trainers penalty was handed out on Friday. So I wouldn't trust the rest of the story to be correct !

Hi Rick Mate I think you might be clutching at straws here, SU was officially disqualified on friday as the story stated , the racing tribunal disq him in oct but on appeal it went to the J.C.A who OFFICIALLY disqualified him on friday. Now the fact that a leading legal figure in N.Z has been Quoted in the story I doubt even the most uneducated of readers would Question its authenticity . I have also read the same statements from Mary-Jane -Thomas the solicitor in Question in another article in a N.Z paper . So using your logic that SU WAS OFFICIALLY DISQUALIFIED ON FRIDAY would that mean you will concede that the rest of the story is TRUE.

[teecee]

Teecee Mate I don't know were your coming up with this legal jargon from , you actually had me thinking you knew what you was talking about . that was until I read this http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/horseracing/justice-quest-smoken-up-disqualification-challenged-20111217-1ozsm.html

Now for you to be right Lance Justice and a whole lot of New Zealand legal minds have got to be wrong . I've got to tell I would have found it very hard to believe that your JCA could not be challenged in the high court as you stated. The high court is not named for the height of the building it's because it is the highest court in the legal system.
What I said...
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....


You said that you knew all about the decisions handed down. I now have serious reservations about that so I shall go back and show you that part of the verdict statement where the NZ High Court AND the Court of Appeal have rejected claims against the relevant rule and the JCA's interpretation of same...

Mr Lange drew further support for his submission from the Judgment of Panckhurst J in McInerney v Templeton & Ors (CP 187/98; High Court Christchurch; 10 November 1999). In that case Mr McInerney was the trainer of two greyhounds which returned positive tests for a drug following their winning of races at a greyhound race meeting in Christchurch in 1997. Mr McInerney as the trainer of the two greyhounds was charged with two breaches of R.138 (6) of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Rules which provided:
"Where the Judicial Committee finds that a greyhound taken to any racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race has had administered to it any drug, stimulant or depressant capable of affecting its speed, stamina, courage or conduct, the owner or trainer or other person who, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee was in charge of such greyhound, may be disqualified for any specific period or for life, his licence may be suspended and/or he may be fined and if the greyhound is disqualified the Judicial Committee shall make the appropriate placings of other greyhounds affected accordingly".
Previously R.138 (6) had incorporated a reasonable precautions defence by the inclusion of the words:
"…unless he satisfies the Committee that he had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the administration of such drug, stimulant or depressant".
But that defence was removed from the Rule when it was amended in 1995 to the form set out above. Mr McInerney was found to have committed breaches of R.138 (6) as charged by a Judicial Committee set up under the Rules, that finding later being upheld by an Appeals Tribunal. In the course of the hearing before the Judicial Committee Mr McInerney's Counsel had submitted that R.138 (6) should be treated as akin to an offence of strict liability and susceptible to a defence that all reasonable precautions had been taken. The Judicial Committee rejected the submission and following its Decision being upheld by the Appeals Tribunal, Mr McInerney instituted Judicial Review proceedings in which, inter alia, the Judicial Committee's finding that R.138 (6) should not be treated as the equivalent of an offence of strict liability was challenged. In dealing with that submission Panckhurst J noted R.138 (6) was in the nature of what he called a "status offence"; that is an offence simply requiring proof (in this instance) of the fact Mr McInerney was the trainer or person in charge of the greyhound which had been taken to a race meeting when the fact, or circumstance, of the administration of a performance affecting drug to it was established. Panckhurst J considered that such an interpretation reflected the plain purpose of the Rule which was to ensure greyhounds competed on level terms and no dog had present in its system any drug capable of affecting its performance. Noting that against that purpose the Rule had been amended in 1995 to remove the reasonable precautions defence, Panckhurst J concluded:
"But accepting the Rule as it is now drafted, I see no basis for importing an absence of fault or due diligence defence."
One aspect of the Judge's reasoning was that under the relevant penalty provisions the Judicial Committee enjoyed what he called "an unfettered discretion" as to disqualification of the greyhound and the penalty to be imposed on the trainer or person in charge of the greyhound, noting it need impose no personal penalty at all.
Panckhurst J's view of how the Rule should be interpreted and applied was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal.

What MJ Thomas is quoted in the article referred in your post...
''We will seek a judicial review of the decision through the High Court,''


What I said....
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.
What MJ thomas is quoted in the article referred in your post...
They will also file an appeal with Harness Racing New Zealand's appeals tribunal.

I think the two pretty well tally..

[Flashing Red]

Tee Cee if it helps, I think many people, such as myself, will agree that the rules have probably been applied correctly as they apply in New Zealand. I think you have provided a compelling argument as to why they have been correctly applied and I now agree with you. But that does not mean that the rules are good rules or lead to fair outcomes. THAT is my beef. I see they have tried to do everything by the book, and by doing so and getting such a ludacris outcome shows just how unfair the rules in NZ are. It is the rules themselves rather then their application.

[teecee]

Boy talk about confused.

The racing tribunal you talk about and the JCA are one and the same.
In NZ the JCA is the panel that hears and adjudicates charges brought by the tri code Racing integrity unit...i.e the stewards.
The stewards are the investigators and the prosecutors, the JCa are the judges.

Back in October the MEDIA were the only ones who erroneously disqualified the horse.
A verdict on the charges(GUILTY) was given at that time with time for both parties to make submissions to the JCA on appropriate penalties.
These were then considered by the panel and decisions made and orders on penalty for both the horse and trainer on Friday last.
A guilty finding in relation to the horse draws a MANDATOry disqualification which was handed down Friday last.

[Flashing Red]

Was that post for me or someone else? I'm not confused about this topic.... :(

[teecee]

Flashing. Hi
have you read the decision on the penalties at www.hrnz.co.nz (http://www.hrnz.co.nz)
In there the background to how the no defence rule came about.
A give and take.
Take away the defence, create a new rule with much lighter penalties.

FYI..I know that some people think I have dealings with the JCA i.e. insider
But No...I am a trainer, owner and breeder in that order.
In my spare time I study the laws in NZ as they apply to racing, the inner workings of the judicial system, and all cases.
I live with these rules, They are part of my life and should I ever need to I hope to have all the ins and outs to defend myself
This is a case I have studied closely. My personal views I still hold close to my chest and may surprise some.
ight through the many posts I have simply tried to explain how things work in NZ for us Licence holders.

The rule as it now stands is regarded by many as a protection.
Most drug cases in NZ are accidental with no malice intent.
This rule suits many as they are unable to explain events that have obviously happened through some oversight or whatever.
This rule covers these events and provides a wakeup call to transgressors.
For other serious transgressors there is another rule with much heavier penalties.
Trainers plead guilty as they are responsible for all that happens in their stable and staff.
It's the cheapest way out..Take the rap and get on with it...eh.

[A BIT DUSTY]

Racing Appeals Tribunal, High Court, or J,C,A . Can someone PLEASE acknowledge that this thing is NOT OVER , as was my original post,

Teecee the rulings you have posted above refer to presenting a horse or in the stated case Greyhound to race free of banned substance which we are all aware of and this is what Lance Justice has been found guilty of ,But what I have been trying to explain IS the appeal will be about the possibility of the horse being contaminated AFTER THE RACE

[teecee]

Racing Appeals Tribunal, High Court, or J,C,A . Can someone PLEASE acknowledge that this thing is NOT OVER , as was my original post,

Teecee the rulings you have posted above refer to presenting a horse or in the stated case Greyhound to race free of banned substance which we are all aware of and this is what Lance Justice has been found guilty of ,But what I have been trying to explain IS the appeal will be about the possibility of the horse being contaminated AFTER THE RACE

The High Court will be asked to perform a JUDICIAL REVIEW.
A JUDICIAL REVIEW is not a rehearing of the evidence. It is to determine whether the rule is consistent with NZ law and whether the processes of the original hearing were consistent with NZ law practice.
They have ruled previously that the rules of HRNZ and the manner that JcA hearings are held ARE consistent with NZ Law. Cropp v NZTR and JCA.

An APPEAL to the Racing Appeals Tribunal is for that Tribunal to determine if the decisions of the JCA panel were manifestly at odds with the evidence.
It is not a relitigation of the evidence or a platform for a hearing of new evidence.
Contamination was one of many issues for determination by the hearing panel and was rejected.

[A BIT DUSTY]

Contamination was one of many issues for determination by the hearing panel and was rejected.

Could this be challenged in the High Court ?

[Danno]

The High Court will be asked to perform a JUDICIAL REVIEW.
A JUDICIAL REVIEW is not a rehearing of the evidence. It is to determine whether the rule is consistent with NZ law and whether the processes of the original hearing were consistent with NZ law practice.
They have ruled previously that the rules of HRNZ and the manner that JcA hearings are held ARE consistent with NZ Law. Cropp v NZTR and JCA.

An APPEAL to the Racing Appeals Tribunal is for that Tribunal to determine if the decisions of the JCA panel were manifestly at odds with the evidence.
It is not a relitigation of the evidence or a platform for a hearing of new evidence.
Contamination was one of many issues for determination by the hearing panel and was rejected.

all due respect Teecee, but the contamination issues rejected were about contamination in the samples, not about post race contamination of the horse, which is quite a separate and to my understanding an untested point.

[teecee]

Contamination was one of many issues for determination by the hearing panel and was rejected.

Could this be challenged in the High Court ?

No. A judicial review does not look at evidence. The appeal to RAT can look at that and determine if the views of the hearing panel are consistent with the evidence they heard.

[teecee]

all due respect Teecee, but the contamination issues rejected were about contamination in the samples, not about post race contamination of the horse, which is quite a separate and to my understanding an untested point.

That would be an attempt to introduce NEW evidence. You can't introduce new evidence at appeal. Basically you've had your day in court. Appeals and reviews are about whether you had a fair hearing and the verdicts are fair based on what evidence was provided at that hearing.

[Flashing Red]

Flashing. Hi
have you read the decision on the penalties at www.hrnz.co.nz (http://www.hrnz.co.nz)
In there the background to how the no defence rule came about.
A give and take.
Take away the defence, create a new rule with much lighter penalties.

Yes.

Like I said, I understand why this case was decided the way it was (it really couldn't be determined any other way) and why there was mandatory disqualification. Initially I didn't appreciate/realise that there are fundamental differences between the way NZ and Australia do things. I do now (no doubt with the help from your posts, thank you) but that doesn't mean I agree with how things are done in NZ. I don't think Australia's way of doing things is the be all and end all, either. For example I don't agree with our stewards being the judge, jury and prosecutor in our system but that is an argument for another day.

And I do think the rules need to be revised and/or changed in NZ. It does not necessarily mean much lighter penalties, however. It's a moot point, but if this Interdom was run and won in Australia and the same thing happened (ie DMSO positive) and in regards to the numerous techicalities, that were listed in the decision, that I have read, I have no doubt in my mind that the charges would have been dismissed. I have seen/read of them being dismissed in Australia for much more trivial circumstances than those in this case.

[Danno]

That would be an attempt to introduce NEW evidence. You can't introduce new evidence at appeal. Basically you've had your day in court. Appeals and reviews are about whether you had a fair hearing and the verdicts are fair based on what evidence was provided at that hearing.

My understanding is it's a high court challenge not an appeal, if that is the case new evidence is entirely admissable

[triplev123]

That would be an attempt to introduce NEW evidence. You can't introduce new evidence at appeal. Basically you've had your day in court. Appeals and reviews are about whether you had a fair hearing and the verdicts are fair based on what evidence was provided at that hearing.


[VVV] There's the hook Teecee. Nobody has had a day in Court.
They've had their day before the JCA. The JCA is NOT a Court although it appears the precedent obsessed boffins who apparently inhabit its halls may periodically kid themselves into thinking otherwise.
The difference lies in the respective burdens of proof required.
The JCA's and for that matter the Australian regulatory system is roughly equivalent to that of a Civil Court...ie. the balance of probabilities....whereas a Criminal Court requires much more i.e. it requires beyond reasonable doubt. Given the judgement that I've read and attempted to understand and if the NZ Court system is basically equivalent to that of our own, I think there's a very good chance Lance & Co. will get this decision thrown out.
Beers on me when next you're in Oz if I am wrong. Flashing would have a better grip on the respective burdens of proof required. Does that sound about right Tahn?

[Flashing Red]

You are correct on the standards of proof. But I am the first to admit that I am not 100% sure how this will all play out in a NZ Court, I'm afraid.

[Itisi]

It will be a bad day for Harness Racing if it goes all the way to courts. There are not to many trainers that don't use DMSO in one way or another particuly after a hard run in your horse needs to back up, I say for the sake of the sport let it go or we will spend the rest of our lives fighting swabs,protest and whatever in courts.

[p plater]

It will be a bad day for Harness Racing if it goes all the way to courts. There are not to many trainers that don't use DMSO in one way or another particuly after a hard run in your horse needs to back up, I say for the sake of the sport let it go or we will spend the rest of our lives fighting swabs,protest and whatever in courts.

This discussion started after Lance Justice stated he would quit the game if found guilty, this is based on his statement that Smoken Up has never ever been treated with DMSO, so how can he let it go..........it's his right to fight. He has been branded a drug cheat and various remarks verging on slander over all of this which in my view we all quick to do without knowing all the facts. We have not been informed of all the evidence given in the case only the selected Committee references to evidence which is obviously slanted to protect their final decision. Given Smoken Up's outstanding performances over his total career as highlighted previous here I for one am prepared to believe Lance here, the horse doesn't need help to win these races, he's a freak of nature. He has performed at this level with security guards race after race and no swabbing problems. Maybe NZ stuffed up somewhere but you expect Lance to cop it.

[Maorisidol]

This discussion started after Lance Justice stated he would quit the game if found guilty, this is based on his statement that Smoken Up has never ever been treated with DMSO, so how can he let it go..........it's his right to fight. He has been branded a drug cheat and various remarks verging on slander over all of this which in my view we all quick to do without knowing all the facts. We have not been informed of all the evidence given in the case only the selected Committee references to evidence which is obviously slanted to protect their final decision. Given Smoken Up's outstanding performances over his total career as highlighted previous here I for one am prepared to believe Lance here, the horse doesn't need help to win these races, he's a freak of nature. He has performed at this level with security guards race after race and no swabbing problems. Maybe NZ stuffed up somewhere but you expect Lance to cop it.

Nice work P Plater...

To Mick Tobias, if you were charged and fined and therefore deemed guilty of an offence but the clowns making that decision feel you DIDNT ACTUALLY DO IT!!! i am guessing you wouldnt be happy!

[Itisi]

Nice work P Plater...

To Mick Tobias, if you were charged and fined and therefore deemed guilty of an offence but the clowns making that decision feel you DIDNT ACTUALLY DO IT!!! i am guessing you wouldnt be happy!
What about all the innocent trainers that have been nailed with elevated TCO levels, they will tell you they never used it as well.Getting back on topic he did say he would give the game away if found guilty or is that just bull.... to.

[gutwagon]

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=93601
This was on this site back in october. So if teecee and A Bit Dusty are right this article must be wrong ? I don't know for sure but from what I have read on this site SU was disqualified in october and the penalty for the trainer was handed out last Friday. Both articles cannot be %100 correct.
Anyway back to the thread, if Lance is found guilty at the end of the legal procces (which could take years) I would expect him to stick to his word .

[p plater]

Further to knowing what evidence was presented at the Hearing, I think the article written by Mark Geenty a reporter who attended the hearing is interesting reading for those who have not seen it http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/5495985/Trainer-Justices-defence-challenges-drug-testing.

[Maorisidol]

What about all the innocent trainers that have been nailed with elevated TCO levels, they will tell you they never used it as well.Getting back on topic he did say he would give the game away if found guilty or is that just bull.... to.

let me ask this again...

To Mick Tobias, if you were charged and fined and therefore deemed guilty of an offence but the clowns making that decision feel you DIDNT ACTUALLY DO IT!!! i am guessing you wouldnt be happy!
How would you feel Mick?

[teecee]

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=93601
This was on this site back in october. So if teecee and A Bit Dusty are right this article must be wrong ? I don't know for sure but from what I have read on this site SU was disqualified in october and the penalty for the trainer was handed out last Friday. Both articles cannot be %100 correct.
Anyway back to the thread, if Lance is found guilty at the end of the legal procces (which could take years) I would expect him to stick to his word .

Let's clear up the confusion for you...
The article you refer to was written by a journalist who IMO struggles for factual content when looking for a scoop.
When reading articles which are at odds with the official published version make sure you have a large bag of salt handy.
Articles from STUFF treat similarly.
If you really want the true story of any story they are usually published somewhere. In this case www.jca.org.nz (http://www.jca.org.nz) and www.hrnz.co.nz (http://www.hrnz.co.nz)
To help ease your confusion below is what was said Oct 31 2011 by the hearing panel.....


7. Result:

7.1 For those reasons we are satisfied the charge brought against Mr Justice under R.1004 (2) has been proved and "Smoken Up" was connected with a breach of R.1004 (1) and (2) when it ran in and won the Pacers Grand Final at the Inter Dominion Championships on 8 April 2011, for the purposes of R.1004 (8).

7.2 We think it appropriate to make it clear the finding the charge brought against Mr Justice has been proved does not carry with it any finding he personally was responsible for "Smoken Up's" elevated DMSO level when it was presented to race in the Pacers Grand Final on the evening of 8 April 2011. In opening the Informant's case on 23 August 2011 Mr Lange expressly conceded there was no evidence Mr Justice was "complicit",as he put it, in the sense he personally, or any person with his knowledge, was responsible for the horse's elevated DMSO level and there has been no evidence put before us which suggests otherwise.

7.3 We now require submissions from Counsel as to penalty and costs which will include the costs of the Judicial Control Authority which Mr Lange will have responsibility for. To that end the following timetable is to apply:
(i) Mr Lange is to file and serve on Ms Thomas his submissions on penalty and costs within one week of the date of this Decision;
(ii) Ms Thomas will have a further week from the date of receipt of Mr Lange's submissions to file her submissions in reply;
(iii) Leave is reserved to apply if for any valid reason there is difficulty with that timetable.

DATED at Wellington this 31st day of October 2011


_________________________
Bruce Squire QC (Chairman)

_________________________
Professor Geoffrey Hall

I cant see anything there about Smoken Up being disqualified.
Can you.
I do wear specs so I may have missed it but having read it so many times I doubt it.

ou will find the determinant statement re Smoken Up's position in the race on the front page link at www.hrnz.co.nz (http://www.hrnz.co.nz)
That statement was released 16 December 2011.

[aussiebreno]

Let's clear up the confusion for you...
The article you refer to was written by a journalist who IMO struggles for factual content when looking for a scoop.
When reading articles which are at odds with the official published version make sure you have a large bag of salt handy.
Articles from STUFF treat similarly.
If you really want the true story of any story they are usually published somewhere. In this case www.jca.org.nz (http://www.jca.org.nz) and www.hrnz.co.nz (http://www.hrnz.co.nz)
To help ease your confusion below is what was said Oct 31 2011 by the hearing panel.....


7. Result:

7.1 For those reasons we are satisfied the charge brought against Mr Justice under R.1004 (2) has been proved and "Smoken Up" was connected with a breach of R.1004 (1) and (2) when it ran in and won the Pacers Grand Final at the Inter Dominion Championships on 8 April 2011, for the purposes of R.1004 (8).

7.2 We think it appropriate to make it clear the finding the charge brought against Mr Justice has been proved does not carry with it any finding he personally was responsible for "Smoken Up's" elevated DMSO level when it was presented to race in the Pacers Grand Final on the evening of 8 April 2011. In opening the Informant's case on 23 August 2011 Mr Lange expressly conceded there was no evidence Mr Justice was "complicit",as he put it, in the sense he personally, or any person with his knowledge, was responsible for the horse's elevated DMSO level and there has been no evidence put before us which suggests otherwise.

7.3 We now require submissions from Counsel as to penalty and costs which will include the costs of the Judicial Control Authority which Mr Lange will have responsibility for. To that end the following timetable is to apply:
(i) Mr Lange is to file and serve on Ms Thomas his submissions on penalty and costs within one week of the date of this Decision;
(ii) Ms Thomas will have a further week from the date of receipt of Mr Lange's submissions to file her submissions in reply;
(iii) Leave is reserved to apply if for any valid reason there is difficulty with that timetable.

DATED at Wellington this 31st day of October 2011


_________________________
Bruce Squire QC (Chairman)

_________________________
Professor Geoffrey Hall

I cant see anything there about Smoken Up being disqualified.
Can you.
I do wear specs so I may have missed it but having read it so many times I doubt it.

ou will find the determinant statement re Smoken Up's position in the race on the front page link at www.hrnz.co.nz (http://www.hrnz.co.nz)
That statement was released 16 December 2011.
He may not have been officially disqualified but everybody knew the race was being taken off him as a result.

[teecee]

[VVV] There's the hook Teecee. Nobody has had a day in Court.
They've had their day before the JCA. The JCA is NOT a Court although it appears the precedent obsessed boffins who apparently inhabit its halls may periodically kid themselves into thinking otherwise.
The difference lies in the respective burdens of proof required.
The JCA's and for that matter the Australian regulatory system is roughly equivalent to that of a Civil Court...ie. the balance of probabilities....whereas a Criminal Court requires much more i.e. it requires beyond reasonable doubt. Given the judgement that I've read and attempted to understand and if the NZ Court system is basically equivalent to that of our own, I think there's a very good chance Lance & Co. will get this decision thrown out.
Beers on me when next you're in Oz if I am wrong. Flashing would have a better grip on the respective burdens of proof required. Does that sound about right Tahn?

Sorry Jaimie.. The day in court remark was not meant to be a literal description.
The JCA is not a court, true but it is a properly constituted tribunal to hear issues concerning the integrity of racing in NZ as is the Sports arbitration tribunals.
I'm not sure you are being entirely fair to the JCA or for that matter it's members and especially the two people on this panel.
As this case was such a high profile case the chair of the JCA 9 a very approachable lady) selected her two most senior and experienced panellists to hear the case.
The JCA have created resources to assist Licence holders perform to their best before judicial panels and have been very helpful to many in this aspect.
Indeed I believe that Lance could have done much worse than select either or both of these gentlemen to represent him if they were not otherwise engaged.
They deal with the ins and outs of NZ racing rules more than most. This is no indictment at all on MJT. She is extremely able. I know her. Her Family and mine are quite close friends.
The JCA and the counsel in this case are only dealing with a rule created by others.
these "others" are the real boffins IMO as you so elegantly put it are those who have taken the Harness Racing industry in the country from the highs of a $1.2 million NZ Cup 3 years ago to virtually bankruptcy or an industry of paupers at best.

Anyway I look forward to sharing a beer with you at anytime on either side of the ditch.

[Maorisidol]

Tony,

"these "others" are the real boffins IMO as you so elegantly put it are those who have taken the Harness Racing industry in the country from the highs of a $1.2 million NZ Cup 3 years ago to virtually bankruptcy or an industry of paupers at best."

So who are the "others"?

Is it possible to change any of these "you didnt do it, but you are guilty" rules?

To me it is simply not common sense...

lets say a strapper has a grief with his trainer boss and secretly slaps some DMSO on a horse, the trainer is innocent, its a nasty setup, its proven to be a setup as in the strapper confesses BUT the rules states...trainer guilty cos he "presented the horse"!

Stupid "others"!!!

[aussiebreno]

Tony,

"these "others" are the real boffins IMO as you so elegantly put it are those who have taken the Harness Racing industry in the country from the highs of a $1.2 million NZ Cup 3 years ago to virtually bankruptcy or an industry of paupers at best."

So who are the "others"?

Is it possible to change any of these "you didnt do it, but you are guilty" rules?

To me it is simply not common sense...

lets say a strapper has a grief with his trainer boss and secretly slaps some DMSO on a horse, the trainer is innocent, its a nasty setup, its proven to be a setup as in the strapper confesses BUT the rules states...trainer guilty cos he "presented the horse"!

Stupid "others"!!!
Civil and criminal law would then apply.

[teecee]

[QUOTE=Maorisidol;14377]Tony,

"these "others" are the real boffins IMO as you so elegantly put it are those who have taken the Harness Racing industry in the country from the highs of a $1.2 million NZ Cup 3 years ago to virtually bankruptcy or an industry of paupers at best."

So who are the "others"?
The others are the lawmakers. The legal eagles employed by HZ to write the rules.
The Board of HRNZ who sanction these rules and the delegates from each club and kindred body who go to the Annual conference and vote for these rules.
Kindred bodies include trainers and drivers assn, breeders assn and owners assn.
Yes that's right even the Harness Racing Trainers and Drivers Assn are party to this.

Is it possible to change any of these "you didnt do it, but you are guilty" rules?

Rules are made at Conference or by the Board of HRNZ.
Lobbying the Board, changing the Board (Easier option!!!!!).
You can guess when these rules are made by the industry itself. The JCA is totally independent to interpret and use what the industry give it to judge a case.

To me it is simply not common sense...

lets say a strapper has a grief with his trainer boss and secretly slaps some DMSO on a horse, the trainer is innocent, its a nasty setup, its proven to be a setup as in the strapper confesses BUT the rules states...trainer guilty cos he "presented the horse"!

Well Taking out the grief part,I guess this is why Mark Purdon closed his Auckland Satellite stable and canned his Aussie operations after the "Fly Like an Eagle" case.
You can't be everywhere at once with an eye on all........

[Maorisidol]

Great last point TC,
A Trainer can't see every horse all day every day especially if a trainer is a trainer/driver (Lance) too...
How logically can that person watch what is happening with his horse while getting changed etc!!!
Illogical thinking in my opinion, get the culprit of an offence don't just pass the buck, that's weak I reckon.
So if a rugby/footy player king hits another player, under these rules the Captain or Coach who didn't do it, and the tribunal agrees there is no evidence to prove the Captain or Coach did do it, that person gets charged fined reprimanded suspended not the hitter!
Illogical
Not common sense

[aussiebreno]

Great last point TC,
A Trainer can't see every horse all day every day especially if a trainer is a trainer/driver (Lance) too...
How logically can that person watch what is happening with his horse while getting changed etc!!!
Illogical thinking in my opinion, get the culprit of an offence don't just pass the buck, that's weak I reckon.
So if a rugby/footy player king hits another player, under these rules the Captain or Coach who didn't do it, and the tribunal agrees there is no evidence to prove the Captain or Coach did do it, that person gets charged fined reprimanded suspended not the hitter!
Illogical
Not common sense
Analogy does not make sense. They are humans. A coach getting fined because of one of is players would be a trainer getting fined because of the driver doing something wrong. And surprise surprise if the horse wins who most trainers pay the drivers fine anyway!

[Mighty Atom]

The horse had DMSO in its system(9.3mg/l on 1 April and the higher reading 8 April). Who did it? Maybe it was Tinkerbell waving her magic wand around and spreading fairy dust in the guise of DMSO. Lance has stated he never uses the stuff - hates it. So an explanation is required regarding the April 1 reading even if it is in the legal range. Very incriminating in my mind.

[A BIT DUSTY]

lets say a strapper has a grief with his trainer boss and secretly slaps some DMSO on a horse, the trainer is innocent, its a nasty setup, its proven to be a setup as in the strapper confesses BUT the rules states...trainer guilty cos he "presented the horse"!

Just a little extra on this subject and how inconsistent this law is . Denis Wilson was in Queensland with Attitagain when one of his horses in sydney goes positive because of a stable employee giving the wrong horse medication , Wilson get's suspended . D. Thomas goes positive for bute his mother say's she gave the wrong horse the bute ,mother gets fined D. Thomas no suspension.
Gai Waterhouse horse goes positive to coke , stable hand says he does coke must have touched horse Gai fined no suspension , D Smith goes positive for bute his father say's he gave wrong horse the bute D Smith suspended. WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF WE HAD SOME FORM OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING FINDINGS AND PENALTIES.

[A BIT DUSTY]

The horse had DMSO in its system(9.3mg/l on 1 April and the higher reading 8 April). Who did it? Maybe it was Tinkerbell waving her magic wand around and spreading fairy dust in the guise of DMSO. Lance has stated he never uses the stuff - hates it. So an explanation is required regarding the April 1 reading even if it is in the legal range. Very incriminating in my mind.

Hi Rod Good question and I hope I can shed some light on it for you .The reason there is a threshold for D.M.S.O is because it is a by product from trees, therefore
it is a naturally occuring product ,ie a horse chews on a bit of bark while in the paddock or chews the railing of his yard can give a reading. So you can put your tinkerbell theory to rest. Hear is some very interesting reading http://cancertutor.com/Cancer/DMSO.htm

[aussiebreno]

lets say a strapper has a grief with his trainer boss and secretly slaps some DMSO on a horse, the trainer is innocent, its a nasty setup, its proven to be a setup as in the strapper confesses BUT the rules states...trainer guilty cos he "presented the horse"!

Just a little extra on this subject and how inconsistent this law is . Denis Wilson was in Queensland with Attitagain when one of his horses in sydney goes positive because of a stable employee giving the wrong horse medication A stable employees paid to do stuff by Wilson, Wilson get's suspended . D. Thomas goes positive for bute his mother Not an employee of the trainer say's she gave the wrong horse the bute ,mother gets fined D. Thomas no suspension.
Gai Waterhouse Different code horse goes positive to coke , stable hand says he does coke must have touched horse Gai fined no suspension Not scientifically proven it could be transferred , D Smith goes positive for bute his father say's he gave wrong horse the bute D Smith suspended D Smith never heard the name, galloping trainer? If so different code. WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF WE HAD SOME FORM OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING PENALTIES.
Also, there is more than one reason behind a decision. No two circumstances are the same.

[Maorisidol]

Analogy does not make sense. They are humans. A coach getting fined because of one of is players would be a trainer getting fined because of the driver doing something wrong. And surprise surprise if the horse wins who most trainers pay the drivers fine anyway!

Breno, my meaning being if any person gets "fined accused convicted" of anything, but ANY other person, fellow teammate, strapper, person of general public Actually commits the crime, my point is, it's dumb that the Trainer/Coach/whoever, cops the crap!

[A BIT DUSTY]

Also, there is more than one reason behind a decision. No two circumstances are the same.

BRENDAN HAVE YOU LOST THE F----- PLOT D.Wilson was 900 klms away D thomas's mother was living on the same property working with the horses , the fact that one was a paid employee and the other was not has got F all to do with a trainer presenting a horse to race free of a prohibited substance , it is total responsibility of the trainer that is why I was bemoaning the lack of consistency. D. Smith happens to train one of Australia's best galloping sprinters Atomic Force I'm sorry for not making this clearer, I took it for granted that most people with any currant sporting knowledge would have known this. Obviously the reference was a comparison to Gai Waterhouse getting off.

Your comments re: A stable employees paid to do stuff by Wilson, Wilson get's suspended . D. Thomas goes positive for bute his mother Not an employee of the trainer .

Using your logic Brendan HOW do you Explain the Waterhouse ( paid employee) get's off. D Smith ( non payed father ) get's suspended. Please don't give me the different codes thing because we are under the same legal system in Australia.

[p plater]

The horse had DMSO in its system(9.3mg/l on 1 April and the higher reading 8 April). Who did it? Maybe it was Tinkerbell waving her magic wand around and spreading fairy dust in the guise of DMSO. Lance has stated he never uses the stuff - hates it. So an explanation is required regarding the April 1 reading even if it is in the legal range. Very incriminating in my mind.

Just so you understand MA. DMSO is in our food chain, it is natures way of us getting our required sulphur. How much have you consumed today from the following list. It is also interesting that lucerne has the highest level of DMSO that is why a level of 15 has been set to allow for daily consumption in racing horses. The list includes; Alfalfa,Asparagus,Barley,Beans,Beets,Cabbage,Corn, Cucumbers,Oats,Onions,Swiss Chard,Tomatoes,Apples,Raspberries,Spearmint,Beer,C offee,Tea and Lucerne.
Did you enjoy your DMSO today?

[A BIT DUSTY]

Also, there is more than one reason behind a decision. No two circumstances are the same.

Not scientifically proven it could be transferred ,*


Waterhouse, a 2007 Hall of Fame nominee, has had an exemplary record since taking out her trainer's licence in 1992. Her only previous drugs-related issue was the Love You Honey cocaine affair where the trainer was fined $15,000 by stewards but had that penalty over-turned on appeal after it was established the positive swab was more likely a result of contamination from a stablehand


Just to enlighten you a little more Brendan in a court of law you don't have to have SCIENTIFIC PROOF to have reasonable doubt. KEEP READING MY POST YOUR LEARNING EVERY DAY.

[Mighty Atom]

Hi Rod Good question and I hope I can shed some light on it for you .The reason there is a threshold for D.M.S.O is because it is a by product from trees, therefore
it is a naturally occuring product ,ie a horse chews on a bit of bark while in the paddock or chews the railing of his yard can give a reading. So you can put your tinkerbell theory to rest. Hear is some very interesting reading http://cancertutor.com/Cancer/DMSO.htm Thanks Denny for the info and reading material,very interesting.

[A BIT DUSTY]

Thanks Denny for the info and reading material,very interesting.

Hi Rod I only stumbled on that site looking for some info on D.M.S.O , but it blew me away with some of the claims in it ,I'm certainly going to do a bit more research into it.

[aussiebreno]

Breno, my meaning being if any person gets "fined accused convicted" of anything, but ANY other person, fellow teammate, strapper, person of general public Actually commits the crime, my point is, it's dumb that the Trainer/Coach/whoever, cops the crap!

Yeah I get your point but its a bad analogy because in 99% of cases humans can control our actions but horses can't control a drug getting into their system.

[aussiebreno]

BRENDAN HAVE YOU LOST THE F----- PLOT D.Wilson was 900 klms away D thomas's mother was living on the same property working with the horses , the fact that one was a paid employee and the other was not has got F all to do with a trainer presenting a horse to race free of a prohibited substance , it is total responsibility of the trainer that is why I was bemoaning the lack of consistency. D. Smith happens to train one of Australia's best galloping sprinters Atomic Force I'm sorry for not making this clearer, I took it for granted that most people with any currant sporting knowledge would have known this. Obviously the reference was a comparison to Gai Waterhouse getting off.

Your comments re: A stable employees paid to do stuff by Wilson, Wilson get's suspended . D. Thomas goes positive for bute his mother Not an employee of the trainer .

Using your logic Brendan HOW do you Explain the Waterhouse ( paid employee) get's off. D Smith ( non payed father ) get's suspended. Please don't give me the different codes thing because we are under the same legal system in Australia.

Without knowing the cases in specific law isn't a science experiment where you have a dependent variable and an independent variable. In law cases there are many variables you can't just take one similarity between the case and say the rulings weren't consistent.

The different codes do have different rules btw.

[A BIT DUSTY]

Without knowing the cases in specific law isn't a science experiment where you have a dependent variable and an independent variable. In law cases there are many variables you can't just take one similarity between the case and say the rulings weren't consistent.

The different codes do have different rules btw.

Brendan wipe the sleep out your eye mate and read what I wrote, I said both codes are under the same legal system . Which means after the respective hearings of either code you can challenge the findings in the SAME COURT SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA.

[Thevoiceofreason]

lets say a strapper has a grief with his trainer boss and secretly slaps some DMSO on a horse, the trainer is innocent, its a nasty setup, its proven to be a setup as in the strapper confesses BUT the rules states...trainer guilty cos he "presented the horse"!

Just a little extra on this subject and how inconsistent this law is . Denis Wilson was in Queensland with Attitagain when one of his horses in sydney goes positive because of a stable employee giving the wrong horse medication , Wilson get's suspended . D. Thomas goes positive for bute his mother say's she gave the wrong horse the bute ,mother gets fined D. Thomas no suspension.
Gai Waterhouse horse goes positive to coke , stable hand says he does coke must have touched horse Gai fined no suspension , D Smith goes positive for bute his father say's he gave wrong horse the bute D Smith suspended. WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF WE HAD SOME FORM OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING FINDINGS AND PENALTIES.

I know what would be good Dennis if you got more of the facts right in your original post.

Lets firstly deal with Darren Smith great bloke, great trainer, but has possibly the worst record in Australian Thoroughbred racing in relation to positive swabs arising from the misuse of therapeutic substances I think about 8 positive swabs, add to that a previous disqualification for Trenbolone implants back in 1999 and his penalty would be considered on the lighter side by many.

Gai Waterhouse great record in relation to positive swabs, unlike Harness all gallops winners are swabbed in NSW so in her case she has had thousands of swabs over the years with an all but impeccable record. Regardless stewards still fined her for her first offence, rest assured D Smith was also fined for his first offence and it was only about a year after he started training way back in the 1980's, seems pretty consistent to me.

I have no knowledge of the D Wilson case so as is my way, no knowledge, no comment.

In the D Thomas case his mother a registered stable hand was in charge of the horses after the races at Penrith and before Harold Park, it was proven Thomas did not return to the stables in that time. Mother was disqualified for 11 months not fined as you would have us believe. In your version D Thomas got nothing when despite the fact he was not at the stables at the relevant time and could prove the fact he still received a significant fine I think it was $10000.

There are many presidents for this type of penalty in Harness in NSW over many years it was not the first time it was done.

By all means have an opinion and voice it but if you are going to provide facts as part of that opinion at least provide ones that are accurate.

You are tying to compare Pineapples with apples and are ending up with Thorn apples.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Thanks for that rundown Mr Beattie but we are all sick of you making excuses for hrnsw. You gave Thomas a free kick.....isn't he your friend on Facebook?? And Darren smith......widely known as a close associate of yours. Now shut up and worry about Macau racing!!

I can not help the facts and if $10000 is a free kick I will send you my bank details and you give me one.

There is no excuses offered for anyone here all I simply did was list the correct facts.

If you think I am Michael Beattie your choice and while on identity I am tipping you are just another nom de pulme.

At least every post is under my name and I do not create any alias' to come on here and tell me how right I am.

And I wont comment on this topic again either unless it is about the facts, so do not worry about any of your other personalities trying to bait me.

I already know of one user who has barred your rubbish I am tipping he will add the new DeanRodgers to his barred list, Well he will if he is Lukey

[Itisi]

So it's a question this time, first of all I take it you have read the transcript of the whole case or are you just pulling out little bits and pieces that suit you, secondly who gives a flying f... how I would feel, this is not about me it's about a person been found guilty and stripped of first place and fined. If he wants to appeal it fair enough but after that let it go and retire like he said he would.Sorry never quoted, it's in repines to ash singh

[Ziggy]

Why should he retire? He has said something in a moment of frustration and disbelief that has been taken and ran with by every muppet who has lost $10 on one of his horses. Believe me if he wanted to retire he could and would but harness racing is his life and passion. To work so hard for something and then to lose it, is an emotional roller coaster. He won't retire and shouldn't have to.

[aussiebreno]

Brendan wipe the sleep out your eye mate and read what I wrote, I said both codes are under the same legal system . Which means after the respective hearings of either code you can challenge the findings in the SAME COURT SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA.

Decision's on penalties weren't made in the courts so your argument is pointless.
I see Bill Williams (Voiceofreason) has pointed out all the differences between the cases as well.

[Maorisidol]

So it's a question this time, first of all I take it you have read the transcript of the whole case or are you just pulling out little bits and pieces that suit you, secondly who gives a flying f... how I would feel, this is not about me it's about a person been found guilty and stripped of first place and fined. If he wants to appeal it fair enough but after that let it go and retire like he said he would.Sorry never quoted, it's in repines to ash singh

The point I am trying to make Michael which importantly includes the question u cannot seem to answer, is that if YOU were charged of something.............however.........the people who are charging you AGREE there is not sufficient evidence to say YOU DID IT, how would u feel?
Would u feel ripped off? Do u Mick Tobias not have any self worth that u would allow that to happen, i doubt it, I imagine most people would stand up for themselves as is Lance. why the hell should Lance "let it go"?
So my point to u comes from your flippant idea that " I say for the sake of the sport let it go or we will spend the rest of our lives fighting swabs,protest and whatever in courts."
Let go that u are now a drug cheat
Let go the biggest race in Harness
Let go the money
Let go your reputation
Would u let that all go Mick if u were Lance and of course u considered u were innocent? I doubt it and I don't even know u...
So why say such things that don't make LOGICAL sense?????

[p plater]

Please don't hang me for this but after some very interesting comments throughout this topic, I would like to pose the follow question for discussion.
If we use this case as an example, where no charges are laid, no evidence of wrong doing by the trainer, both the RIU and the Committee have gone to lengths to state these facts but under the Rules of NZ racing the trainer is found guilty of racing a horse with a high swab reading (trying to keep it simple at this stage).
Question: As the trainer is guilty under NZ rules, could an Owner then sue the Trainer for loss of prizemoney due to 1). The guilty verdict 2) Duty of Care 3) Negligence
Over to you smarter ones

[Itisi]

The point I am trying to make Michael which importantly includes the question u cannot seem to answer, is that if YOU were charged of something.............however.........the people who are charging you AGREE there is not sufficient evidence to say YOU DID IT, how would u feel?
Would u feel ripped off? Do u Mick Tobias not have any self worth that u would allow that to happen, i doubt it, I imagine most people would stand up for themselves as is Lance. why the hell should Lance "let it go"?
So my point to u comes from your flippant idea that " I say for the sake of the sport let it go or we will spend the rest of our lives fighting swabs,protest and whatever in courts."
Let go that u are now a drug cheat
Let go the biggest race in Harness
Let go the money
Let go your reputation
Would u let that all go Mick if u were Lance and of course u considered u were innocent? I doubt it and I don't even know u...
So why say such things that don't make LOGICAL sense?????Good to see you stick to your beliefs and I just hope you do when there is someone you don't like in a similar situation and he cries out I am innocent , we all know you will be there for him. Have no more to say on this topic as you know what I think and I sure as he'll know what you think. Good Luck and all have a Merry Christmas.

[Thevoiceofreason]

I am not weighing in on the Lance Justice case at all as I have not followed the facts closely enough.

I would however add this, the appeal process is important for many reasons even if it is only to test the validity of the rule.

There is no more obvious example than the Geoff Small Changeover case in NSW where at appeal it was argued that the rules as they were worded at the time did not cover this substance as it was not listed in the rules as it was an Antifibrinolytic, ( tranexamic acid) and it only had an effect on the blood system which was also not covered in the rules..

History shows Small won the appeal and low and behold the rules are changed.

Without this appeal the loop hole in the rule remains open.

[Maorisidol]

Good to see you stick to your beliefs and I just hope you do when there is someone you don't like in a similar situation and he cries out I am innocent , we all know you will be there for him. Have no more to say on this topic as you know what I think and I sure as he'll know what you think. Good Luck and all have a Merry Christmas.

Ah, bingo there's the crux of the matter!
Tobias simply doesn't like Lance, so he cannot admit to any common sense because it would be admitting Lance has clearly been unjustly punished due to a stupid loophole in a stupid rule ie. we can't prove u did it, but the "rule" says u cop it anyway
Merry Xmas Mick.

[teecee]

When an Athlete or maybe more specifically a cyclist returns a positive for a banned substance, Is it the athlete or the doctor/ team official who added the substance to his / her diet who faces the music????

[teecee]

I am not weighing in on the Lance Justice case at all as I have not followed the facts closely enough.

I would however add this, the appeal process is important for many reasons even if it is only to test the validity of the rule.

There is no more obvious example than the Geoff Small Changeover case in NSW where at appeal it was argued that the rules as they were worded at the time did not cover this substance as it was not listed in the rules as it was an Antifibrinolytic, ( tranexamic acid) and it only had an effect on the blood system which was also not covered in the rules..

History shows Small won the appeal and low and behold the rules are changed.

Without this appeal the loop hole in the rule remains open.

Your analogy with G Small is unhelpful.
The drug used is listed in the Prohibited Substances List.
The effect of the drug is not relevant. If it's on the list it's banned above the listed threshhold.
There is no loophole in the rule. the rule is solid.
Whether it is fair is what concerns the posters here.

[triplev123]

I am not weighing in on the Lance Justice case at all as I have not followed the facts closely enough.

I would however add this, the appeal process is important for many reasons even if it is only to test the validity of the rule.

There is no more obvious example than the Geoff Small Changeover case in NSW where at appeal it was argued that the rules as they were worded at the time did not cover this substance as it was not listed in the rules as it was an Antifibrinolytic, ( tranexamic acid) and it only had an effect on the blood system which was also not covered in the rules..

History shows Small won the appeal and low and behold the rules are changed.

Without this appeal the loop hole in the rule remains open.

Tough to roll those high priced Law Talkin' Guys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htVkGx4_GqA

[triplev123]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM

[teecee]

Please don't hang me for this but after some very interesting comments throughout this topic, I would like to pose the follow question for discussion.
If we use this case as an example, where no charges are laid, no evidence of wrong doing by the trainer, both the RIU and the Committee have gone to lengths to state these facts but under the Rules of NZ racing the trainer is found guilty of racing a horse with a high swab reading (trying to keep it simple at this stage).
Question: As the trainer is guilty under NZ rules, could an Owner then sue the Trainer for loss of prizemoney due to 1). The guilty verdict 2) Duty of Care 3) Negligence
Over to you smarter ones

You do come up with some real doosies and good on you.
IMO and research ..
If the appeal to the RAT re verdict and penalty is unsuccessful and the validity of the rule
is upheld by the High Court then such a lawsuit is possible.
Wouldn't do much for the owner - trainer relationship.
Can't think of too many trainers who'd take on the care of your horses.

[Gtrain]

I'll take Smoken Up, if that helps!

[p plater]

You do come up with some real doosies and good on you.
IMO and research ..
If the appeal to the RAT re verdict and penalty is unsuccessful and the validity of the rule
is upheld by the High Court then such a lawsuit is possible.
Wouldn't do much for the owner - trainer relationship.
Can't think of too many trainers who'd take on the care of your horses.

What the question was meant to do was to highlight the possible repercussions on trainers if this totally unfair rule was to continue to be applied. The racing industry does not need another hurdle on trainers. It will only take one such case to open the floodgates. Maybe trainers will need Professional Indemnity Insurance.......I'm sure these faceless rule makers didn't consider POSSIBLE situations when making up these rules.

Thanks for your thoughts TC

[Greg Hando]

Please don't hang me for this but after some very interesting comments throughout this topic, I would like to pose the follow question for discussion.
If we use this case as an example, where no charges are laid, no evidence of wrong doing by the trainer, both the RIU and the Committee have gone to lengths to state these facts but under the Rules of NZ racing the trainer is found guilty of racing a horse with a high swab reading (trying to keep it simple at this stage).
Question: As the trainer is guilty under NZ rules, could an Owner then sue the Trainer for loss of prizemoney due to 1). The guilty verdict 2) Duty of Care 3) Negligence
Over to you smarter ones

He probably could but would have trouble findind another trainer for his horse's.

[teecee]

What the question was meant to do was to highlight the possible repercussions on trainers if this totally unfair rule was to continue to be applied. The racing industry does not need another hurdle on trainers. It will only take one such case to open the floodgates. Maybe trainers will need Professional Indemnity Insurance.......I'm sure these faceless rule makers didn't consider POSSIBLE situations when making up these rules.

Thanks for your thoughts TC
Whilst not entirely related I do know of a NZ jockey who went over to Oz a few years ago to ride in Adelaide (not sure if it was the Austalasian or SA Oaks (definitely one of them).
Anyway caused a runner to fall necessitating its untimely end. The jockey copped a stewards penalty as was to be expected but was then slapped with a lawsuit from the fallen filly's owners for their loss.
Not too sure exactly how it ended but as a kiwi he did have insurance against such claims but was a new thing for Oz but did cause jockeys riding in Oz to need to have insurance against such events.

[bbd]

I'd like to ask one question that I can't figure out the answer to.
DMSO is so pungent that it can make some people feel sick. My question is, how could someone in and around the horse after the race, have had such a powerful smelling agent close enough to be able to put it on the horse, without someone noticing it?

[p plater]

I'd like to ask one question that I can't figure out the answer to.
DMSO is so pungent that it can make some people feel sick. My question is, how could someone in and around the horse after the race, have had such a powerful smelling agent close enough to be able to put it on the horse, without someone noticing it?

Good question but also ask how come (from what I've read) no mention of the sweaty horse smelling of DMSO. I am sure that question must have been asked of all those who came in contact with him, swabbing steward, vet, handlers and even at presentation.

[Greg Hando]

Small amount's don't smell a great deal maybe that is why .

[Flashing Red]

I'd like to ask one question that I can't figure out the answer to.
DMSO is so pungent that it can make some people feel sick. My question is, how could someone in and around the horse after the race, have had such a powerful smelling agent close enough to be able to put it on the horse, without someone noticing it?

Small amounts don't smell at all. The only time I can really smell it is if a horse is drenched with it. I used it as part of a mixture of a leg tightener, it doesn't smell at all and I apply it with my bare hands, I can't smell/taste it either. Maybe its me, but even with an unopened bottle I can only smell it if I literally get quite close to have a whiff (my first experience with DMSO! lol!)

[The Lout]

Small amounts don't smell at all. The only time I can really smell it is if a horse is drenched with it. I used it as part of a mixture of a leg tightener, it doesn't smell at all and I apply it with my bare hands, I can't smell/taste it either. Maybe its me, but even with an unopened bottle I can only smell it if I literally get quite close to have a whiff (my first experience with DMSO! lol!)

Tell me flashing red why would one drench a horse with DMSO??

[aussiebreno]

Tell me flashing red why would one drench a horse with DMSO??

It's only illegal to present a horse to the races with it in its the system.

[Flashing Red]

Tell me flashing red why would one drench a horse with DMSO??

Breno is right. I'm not talking about illegal raceday drenching at all. Many trainers drench horses with DMSO - like I said, I'm not talking about raceday (that would be suicidal, you could smell the stench from the other side of the track!) but rather theraputically for many reasons, but the main reason would be to clean the horses system out, ie if they had a cold etc. It is also good for cleaning up lungs etc. Obviously if you are using DMSO for these reasons your horse is not even in a fit state to race anyway, so it is a moot point. If someone was silly enough to drench a horse with it on raceday it wouldn't effect the horse's performance anyway (IMHO) so I don't know why they would bother!! Plus the smell would give you away before you unloaded the horse off the truck!! :)

[The Lout]

Thanks Flashing,
just for interests sake, I wasn't referring to raceday drenching, just drenching with the vile stuff! I have used it many times externally on horses for it's penetrative qualities. It acts similar to a solvent in this situation and I was just curious about treating horses internally with it.


Cheers,

Harry

[THE SIVER FOX]

I know what would be good Dennis if you got more of the facts right in your original post.

Lets firstly deal with Darren Smith great bloke, great trainer, but has possibly the worst record in Australian Thoroughbred racing in relation to positive swabs arising from the misuse of therapeutic substances I think about 8 positive swabs, add to that a previous disqualification for Trenbolone implants back in 1999 and his penalty would be considered on the lighter side by many.

Gai Waterhouse great record in relation to positive swabs, unlike Harness all gallops winners are swabbed in NSW so in her case she has had thousands of swabs over the years with an all but impeccable record. Regardless stewards still fined her for her first offence, rest assured D Smith was also fined for his first offence and it was only about a year after he started training way back in the 1980's, seems pretty consistent to me.

I have no knowledge of the D Wilson case so as is my way, no knowledge, no comment.


In the D Thomas case his mother a registered stable hand was in charge of the horses after the races at Penrith and before Harold Park, it was proven Thomas did not return to the stables in that time. Mother was disqualified for 11 months not fined as you would have us believe. In your version D Thomas got nothing when despite the fact he was not at the stables at the relevant time and could prove the fact he still received a significant fine I think it was $10000.

There are many presidents for this type of penalty in Harness in NSW over many years it was not the first time it was done.

By all means have an opinion and voice it but if you are going to provide facts as part of that opinion at least provide ones that are accurate.

You are tying to compare Pineapples with apples and are ending up with Thorn apples.

Very interesting reading TVOR seems as though you have a good idea of the D thomas case but not so with D. Wilson case,From what I can remember D. Wilson was also away from the stables during the time that the horse that he was training returned a positive swab , but unlike D Thomas because he was the regisitered trainer D Wilson was suspended. I'm not sure whether D Wilson's Mother was was around at the time to take the rap or It might have been a different panel of stewards either way it does seem to be two similar cases with two different outcomes.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Very interesting reading TVOR seems as though you have a good idea of the D thomas case but not so with D. Wilson case,From what I can remember D. Wilson was also away from the stables during the time that the horse that he was training returned a positive swab , but unlike D Thomas because he was the regisitered trainer D Wilson was suspended. I'm not sure whether D Wilson's Mother was was around at the time to take the rap or It might have been a different panel of stewards either way it does seem to be two similar cases with two different outcomes.


As I said in the original post I have no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the action taken against Dennis Wilson so I have no opinion.

On face value what you say makes sense but every appeal judge will tell you each case has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances.

[real life]

The reason the trainer is the one responsible for the horse turning up race day substance free is because he is the one collecing the money from the owners every month and the percentages of prize money not the stablehands! (that rule seems common sense to me ash singh)
lance was only responsible for smoken up and captain joy in n.z. there is no one else to blame if lance doesnt like it then i suggest he go bak and be a stable hand with no responsabilities. otherwise suck it up and lets move on bring on ID12 in perth

[ringman]

The only person who believed Lance was Lance himself, he takes the fame when it wins and runs away from blame when it comes to light the horse is juiced up.your the trainer its your responsibility to take the horse to the races knowing what condition its in.

[p plater]

The only person who believed Lance was Lance himself, he takes the fame when it wins and runs away from blame when it comes to light the horse is juiced up.your the trainer its your responsibility to take the horse to the races knowing what condition its in.

Now that's sound reasoning, do you apply that same small minded logic for any results whilst Lance is laying in hospital waiting for his operation. Surely you are man enough to listen to all the evidence available in each trainers defence before you "take aim" at anyone.

[ringman]

Now that's sound reasoning, do you apply that same small minded logic for any results whilst Lance is laying in hospital waiting for his operation. Surely you are man enough to listen to all the evidence available in each trainers defence before you "take aim" at anyone.

He will get over the fall its not life threatening,so do you mind if i have a opinion on here:confused: because i listened to his side of the story and dont fall for it.
If his story is true then he is the person responsible to take the horse to the track in a clean state.
I suppose you will believe Bennett,Fitzpatrick,and Sarina when they get lies from their legal team to cry out in court.

[Messenger]

I know I am being ghoulish but does anybody know of any footage of the fall?

[triplev123]

The only person who believed Lance was Lance himself, he takes the fame when it wins and runs away from blame when it comes to light the horse is juiced up.your the trainer its your responsibility to take the horse to the races knowing what condition its in.

[VVV] Ringman, to refer to any horse returning a DMSO positive as having been 'juiced up' underlines a substantial lack of understanding of the subject. Anyone who has had any experience with it will tell you that it is NOT a performance enhancer and anyone with any grasp of its chemical structure would state the same. It never has been and it never will be a performance enhancer and it is absurd on your part to suggest otherwise.

[ringman]

yeah correct i used the wrong word there but its against the rules and Lance must wear the blame.
i will try to use the correct wording in future so i dont upset you :p

[Danno]

[VVV] Ringman, to refer to any horse returning a DMSO positive as having been 'juiced up' underlines a substantial lack of understanding of the subject. Anyone who has had any experience with it will tell you that it is NOT a performance enhancer and anyone with any grasp of its chemical structure would state the same. It never has been and it never will be a performance enhancer and it is absurd on your part to suggest otherwise.

Jamie, not sure about your own grasp of the chemical struture of DMSO ( Dimenthyl Sulfoxide-- ( CH3 ) 2 SO. ) clinical tests have proven that at fairly high dosage rates it can have a significant effect on water retention, which can, obviously,have an effect on performance. However, having said that the amount found in Smokin' Up after the race was only slightly above the permissable threshold and in no way could have enhanced his performance even if it is ever proven that it was in his system during the race.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the point you were trying to make to Ringman, but DMNSO is banned for a reason.

Cheers,
Dan

[A BIT DUSTY]

I know what would be good Dennis if you got more of the facts right in your original post.

Lets firstly deal with Darren Smith great bloke, great trainer, but has possibly the worst record in Australian Thoroughbred racing in relation to positive swabs arising from the misuse of therapeutic substances I think about 8 positive swabs, add to that a previous disqualification for Trenbolone implants back in 1999 and his penalty would be considered on the lighter side by many.

Gai Waterhouse great record in relation to positive swabs, unlike Harness all gallops winners are swabbed in NSW so in her case she has had thousands of swabs over the years with an all but impeccable record. Regardless stewards still fined her for her first offence, rest assured D Smith was also fined for his first offence and it was only about a year after he started training way back in the 1980's, seems pretty consistent to me.

I have no knowledge of the D Wilson case so as is my way, no knowledge, no comment.

In the D Thomas case his mother a registered stable hand was in charge of the horses after the races at Penrith and before Harold Park, it was proven Thomas did not return to the stables in that time. Mother was disqualified for 11 months not fined as you would have us believe. In your version D Thomas got nothing when despite the fact he was not at the stables at the relevant time and could prove the fact he still received a significant fine I think it was $10000.

There are many presidents for this type of penalty in Harness in NSW over many years it was not the first time it was done.

By all means have an opinion and voice it but if you are going to provide facts as part of that opinion at least provide ones that are accurate.

You are tying to compare Pineapples with apples and are ending up with Thorn apples.

Once again I apologise for going so far back in a thread but as I was doing time I didn't get a chance to respond earlier. The first thing I would like to say is I regret naming people in my examples , as It probably looked like I was taking sides or trying to make it look like some where more guilty than others . This was certainly not my intention, I was just trying to highlight the different outcomes for similar offences . I know D Thomas and his mother and am well aware of the circumstances of the case involving them, and I totally agreed that due to the facts of the case they where probably hard done by. The point of my post was that D Wilson was probably less culpable but got a harsher penalty.
In hindsight I agree that comparing D Smith with G Waterhouse was a poor comparison, but once again just trying to show how some people's story is believed and others not.

[Thevoiceofreason]

I think what it does show is that what can appear to be similar cases on face value actually can have a very different set of facts that lead to the breach.

Having said that if part of your point is D Wilson appears to have been hardly done by ...on the face of it I tend to agree.

[ringman]

Jamie, not sure about your own grasp of the chemical struture of DMSO ( Dimenthyl Sulfoxide-- ( CH3 ) 2 SO. )
Don't get me wrong, I understand the point you were trying to make to Ringman, but DMNSO is banned for a reason.

Cheers,
Dan

Its also a reliever for inflammation and arthritic conditions which makes it a performance enhancer but not according to the wizard on here

[p plater]

Its also a reliever for inflammation and arthritic conditions which makes it a performance enhancer but not according to the wizard on here

If it is as Ringman indicates and if 15 mg/l is legal, what pain relief would 25 mg/l do. From documents read it appears over 600 mg/l up to 000's mg/l are the norm when given in treatments

[A BIT DUSTY]

Its also a reliever for inflammation and arthritic conditions which makes it a performance enhancer but not according to the wizard on here

When you read this site ,we'll all be on the stuff.http://www.dmso.org/articles/information/muir.htm

[A BIT DUSTY]

If it is as Ringman indicates and if 15 mg/l is legal, what pain relief would 25 mg/l do. From documents read it appears over 600 mg/l up to 000's mg/l are the norm when given in treatments

It's not what the level is at the time of the swab that tell you what benefit the horse gets, If you have a horse with cronic joint pain or arthritis drenching with High levels of DMSO can help relief both of these ailments. It is NOT illegal to do this as long as by the time you present your horse to race it is inside the legal threshold .... the same as bi-carb it is also not illegal to use but you have a level you have to be under to race , So treating a horse with DMSO leading into a race can be just as tricky as bi-carb, as the trainer you have to make sure your calculations are spot on or you run the risk of a positive swab

[aussiebreno]

Its also a reliever for inflammation and arthritic conditions which makes it a performance enhancer but not according to the wizard on here
Pain relief doesn't improve performance. It merely allows peak performance to occur.
It only allows for ability to be realised, it doesn't increase ability.

[Danno]

Pain relief doesn't improve performance. It merely allows peak performance to occur.
It only allows for ability to be realised, it doesn't increase ability.

Brendan, I suggest you take that argument to the various racing authorities.

[A BIT DUSTY]

Pain relief doesn't improve performance. It merely allows peak performance to occur.
It only allows for ability to be realised, it doesn't increase ability.

Brendan I think your clutching at straws on this one mate , if a horse is racked with pain and you treat it with a pain reliever which allows it to perform at a greater level than it would have without the pain relief then surely this is enhancing it's performance.

[aussiebreno]

Brendan, I suggest you take that argument to the various racing authorities.
It has been debated not just in racing but in the world outside of racing.

Brendan I think your clutching at straws on this one mate , if a horse is racked with pain and you treat it with a pain reliever which allows it to perform at a greater level than it would have without the pain relief then surely this is enhancing it's performance.
Only on the race-day/night. It doesn't actually make the horse better. It merely just allows it to race to its potential.

It's a fine line but surely painkillers aren't in the same league as growth hormones etc?

I'm not condoning the use or presentation of a horse to race with the drug in its system, all I'm saying is it doesn't make the horse better.

[ringman]

Pain relief doesn't improve performance. It merely allows peak performance to occur.
It only allows for ability to be realised, it doesn't increase ability.
Is that right ??? so if the horse is only capable of performing at 80% in pain and its given pain relief and performs at 95% that hasnt improved its performance had it run with the pain.

[A BIT DUSTY]

It has been debated not just in racing but in the world outside of racing.

Only on the race-day/night. It doesn't actually make the horse better. It merely just allows it to race to its potential.

It's a fine line but surely painkillers aren't in the same league as growth hormones etc?

I'm not condoning the use or presentation of a horse to race with the drug in its system, all I'm saying is it doesn't make the horse better.

Brendan why do you think they are banned? if they do not enhance performance. and nobody is saying that it improves a horse or makes them run faster than they normally can , but allowing them to take away everyday pain that is part and parcel with performance horses is ENHANCING its performance.

[Starship Captain]

I always wondered what would happen if a horse that has been given pain relief? Fall's during a race, injuring other horses and people.

When I have a sore back I do not play football, my thinking is that I will just hurt my back more, am I wrong in thinking this way?

[A BIT DUSTY]

I always wondered what would happen if a horse that has been given pain relief? Fall's during a race, injuring other horses and people.

When I have a sore back I do not play football, my thinking is that I will just hurt my back more, am I wrong in thinking this way?

No you are dead right and that is one of the reasons they are banned , if a horse has a problem that is masked by bute or other painkillers there is a very real danger of the horse having a catastrophic breakdown and bringing everyone down.

[Gtrain]

I always wondered what would happen if a horse that has been given pain relief? Fall's during a race, injuring other horses and people.

When I have a sore back I do not play football, my thinking is that I will just hurt my back more, am I wrong in thinking this way?

Many would though. Depends how tough you are. Professional athletes use painkillers regularly. Ask any Aussie quick or NRL player. I have used them myself and will again. I can see both sides of the argument and this is exactly where our laws have differed from USA previously. Does seem strange for it to be ok for human use but not animal.
On this similar topic I have heard of a procedure where a horse can have nerves severed in the fetlock to eliminate pain in the area and continue to race. I realize this is very taboo but has anyone heard of a similar thing?

[A BIT DUSTY]

Many would though. Depends how tough you are. Professional athletes use painkillers regularly. Ask any Aussie quick or NRL player. I have used them myself and will again. I can see both sides of the argument and this is exactly where our laws have differed from USA previously. Does seem strange for it to be ok for human use but not animal.
On this similar topic I have heard of a procedure where a horse can have nerves severed in the fetlock to eliminate pain in the area and continue to race. I realize this is very taboo but has anyone heard of a similar thing?

The procedure you refer to is called a Nervectomy. I have heard of it being done in the bottom of the pastern to allow horses with navicular disease or pedal bone injuries to be free of pain but IMO to deaden the leg up as high as the fetlock would be extreme as the horse would have no feeling below the point of severance. The down side to this procedure is the danger of the horse doing further damage and also the nerve rejoins after about 2yrs so its not a long term fix.

[aussiebreno]

Is that right ??? so if the horse is only capable of performing at 80% in pain and its given pain relief and performs at 95% that hasnt improved its performance had it run with the pain.
It didn't increase the horses ultimate potential. It did not enhance performance - it only allowed potential to be realised.
If that is a performance enhancer than so is water and food. Without water and food you may only race at say 25% but with it you can race at 100%. So are water and food performance enhancers too?
Something that makes the horse go to 101% is a performance enhancer.
A horse could be given something on the Tuesday, that then allows it to race on Saturday. By the Saturday it is out of its system but do we do midweek testing at stables for drugs that allowed horses to reach potential?
No, there are two different classes of drugs - ones you can have at the stables and ones you can't because they are on different levels of the spectrum.


Brendan why do you think they are banned? if they do not enhance performance. and nobody is saying that it improves a horse or makes them run faster than they normally can , but allowing them to take away everyday pain that is part and parcel with performance horses is ENHANCING its performance.
Enhance
1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
2. To provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features

Painkillers do not make a horse greater or improve a horse. They merely allow the horses features to be met, not advanced.

Edit: I'm actually knocked up on painkillers right now with Swimmers ear and the flu. I don't think Ian Thorpe is going to be worried about me on my painkillers!

[triplev123]

Jamie, not sure about your own grasp of the chemical struture of DMSO ( Dimenthyl Sulfoxide-- ( CH3 ) 2 SO. ) clinical tests have proven that at fairly high dosage rates it can have a significant effect on water retention, which can, obviously,have an effect on performance. However, having said that the amount found in Smokin' Up after the race was only slightly above the permissable threshold and in no way could have enhanced his performance even if it is ever proven that it was in his system during the race.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the point you were trying to make to Ringman, but DMNSO is banned for a reason.

Cheers,
Dan

[VVV] Like a host of other such basically inocuous substances Dan, it is actually banned because it is an easier path to simply ban everything than it is for Administrative & Regulatory persons throughout Australia to get their individual and collective heads out of the respective arses & educate themselves as to the respective pro's and con's and take a practical view thereof. It's in the Too Hard basket.
The most unfortunate aspect of this of course is the very thing that our Draconian medication rules work to prevent...is the very thing that Harness Racing and for that matter all 3 Codes of racing desire...a wagering product that is capable of producing and maintaining consistent, handicappable form.
For example, currently a Trainer can score himself/herself a Bute positive 5-6-7+ days post administration despite the fact that pharmacologically as in pain relief wise it basically ceases working within 12 hours and it is completely shot to hell within 24hrs? Riddle me than, Batman.

[triplev123]

It didn't increase the horses ultimate potential. It did not enhance performance - it only allowed potential to be realised.
If that is a performance enhancer than so is water and food. Without water and food you may only race at say 25% but with it you can race at 100%. So are water and food performance enhancers too?
Something that makes the horse go to 101% is a performance enhancer.
A horse could be given something on the Tuesday, that then allows it to race on Saturday. By the Saturday it is out of its system but do we do midweek testing at stables for drugs that allowed horses to reach potential?
No, there are two different classes of drugs - ones you can have at the stables and ones you can't because they are on different levels of the spectrum.


Enhance
1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
2. To provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features

Painkillers do not make a horse greater or improve a horse. They merely allow the horses features to be met, not advanced.

Edit: I'm actually knocked up on painkillers right now with Swimmers ear and the flu. I don't think Ian Thorpe is going to be worried about me on my painkillers!

[VVV] Well said Breno.

[ringman]

I would reply......... but i dont know what will be permitted after a couple of my posts with nothing untoward in them has been deleted.

[Danno]

[VVV] Like a host of other such basically inocuous substances Dan, it is actually banned because it is an easier path to simply ban everything than it is for(1) Administrative & Regulatory persons throughout Australia to get their individual and collective heads out of the respective arses & educate themselves as to the respective pro's and con's and take a practical view thereof. (2)It's in the Too Hard basket.
The most unfortunate aspect of this of course is the very thing that our Draconian medication rules work to prevent...is the very thing that Harness Racing and for that matter all 3 Codes of racing desire...(3) a wagering product that is capable of producing and maintaining consistent, handicappable form.
For example, currently a Trainer can score himself/herself a Bute positive 5-6-7+ days post administration despite the fact that pharmacologically as in pain relief wise it basically ceases working within 12 hours and it is completely shot to hell within 24hrs? Riddle me than, Batman.

(1) I really don't think the hard working, dedicated albiet often frustrated people administering our sport would, in the slightest, appreciate your desciption of them.

(2) If it's in the "too hard Basket", would this not mean the afformentioned administarors have looked at changing the rules on some therapeutic drugs but, as yet, cannot come up with a plan that works in a practicle way that the industry/sports participants can cope with?

(3) until it can be guaranteed that every time each horse races it is carrying the exact same doses of regulated drugs, then consistent form cannot be assured. Many of these drugs need to be administered 4 to 5 hours in advance of competition. In order for that to happen then each horse using regulated drugs needs to go to the track 4 to 5 hours before it's race. this may work at The Meadowlands where the majority of the runners are stabled on site but in the land of OZ where we are spread out over vast distances, the majority of horses are trained at private establishments and our game would not survive without hobby trainers, (who have a job to tend to) no wonder it's in the too hard basket.

[A BIT DUSTY]

It didn't increase the horses ultimate potential. It did not enhance performance - it only allowed potential to be realised.
If that is a performance enhancer than so is water and food. Without water and food you may only race at say 25% but with it you can race at 100%. So are water and food performance enhancers too?
Something that makes the horse go to 101% is a performance enhancer.
A horse could be given something on the Tuesday, that then allows it to race on Saturday. By the Saturday it is out of its system but do we do midweek testing at stables for drugs that allowed horses to reach potential?


Enhance
1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
2. To provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features

Painkillers do not make a horse greater or improve a horse. They merely allow the horses features to be met, not advanced.

Edit: I'm actually knocked up on painkillers right now with Swimmers ear and the flu. I don't think Ian Thorpe is going to be worried about me on my painkillers!


No, there are two different classes of drugs - ones you can have at the stables and ones you can't because they are on different levels of the spectrum.


Enhance
1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
2. To provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features

Painkillers do not make a horse greater or improve a horse. They merely allow the horses features to be met, not advanced.

Edit: I'm actually knocked up on painkillers right now with Swimmers ear and the flu. I don't think Ian Thorpe is going to be worried about me on my painkillers!

Sorry to hear you are ailing Brendan ,but I don't think Ian Thorp would be looking over his shoulder for you, even if you was 100%. If you took the time to read my thread I made the point that pain killers can not improve a horses ability so to use your silly little analogy does not make sense (I think I have read others say the same). In your own research you have proven what I have been trying to explain to you , EFFECTIVENESS 1 power to produce results, 2 the state of being operative , 3 to produce as an effect, Brendan you can see from your own words that pain killers ENHANCE ones ability to perform.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Gentleman,

This is an interesting debate.

Jamie is not quite right it was in the too hard basket there is no doubt of that.

However there is a very genuine push to improve things internationally currently within the Thoroughbred code.

They are working towards detection screening limits to be set worldwide it is as you can imagine a massive task but there efforts appear to be a genuine.

The stumbling block in the past has been America where race day treatments of some therapeutic substances has been permitted on race days in some states, my information is that the Americans are more than open to move on this now.

Also there have been massive improvement in the ability to detect the parent drug in blood, some analysts say this this is the way of the future because in most cases if its in the blood it is still having an effect on the horse.

Some caution tho it will not happen tomorrow.

[A BIT DUSTY]

(1) i really don't think the hard working, dedicated albiet often frustrated people administering our sport would, in the slightest, appreciate your desciption of them.

(2) if it's in the "too hard basket", would this not mean the afformentioned administarors have looked at changing the rules on some therapeutic drugs but, as yet, cannot come up with a plan that works in a practicle way that the industry/sports participants can cope with?

(3) until it can be guaranteed that every time each horse races it is carrying the exact same doses of regulated drugs, then consistent form cannot be assured. Many of these drugs need to be administered 4 to 5 hours in advance of competition. In order for that to happen then each horse using regulated drugs needs to go to the track 4 to 5 hours before it's race. This may work at the meadowlands where the majority of the runners are stabled on site but in the land of oz where we are spread out over vast distances, the majority of horses are trained at private establishments and our game would not survive without hobby trainers, (who have a job to tend to) no wonder it's in the too hard basket.

well said danno

[peteboss4]

Correct me if im wrong, but didn't trainers in the past put in treatment sheets before they raced ( for bute etc ) . And if so why was this stopped. Any one know ? . Maybe this way it would be more of a level playing field. Or maybe it was dangerous for horses to race & not feel pain.

[Danno]

Sorry to hear you are ailing Brendan ,but I don't think Ian Thorp would be looking over his shoulder for you, even if you was 100%. If you took the time to read my thread I made the point that pain killers can not improve a horses ability so to use your silly little analogy does not make sense (I think I have read others say the same). In your own research you have proven what I have been trying to explain to you , EFFECTIVENESS 1 power to produce results, 2 the state of being operative , 3 to produce as an effect, Brendan you can see from your own words that pain killers ENHANCE ones ability to perform.

Well said Dusty!!

[A BIT DUSTY]

Correct me if im wrong, but didn't trainers in the past put in treatment sheets before they raced ( for bute etc ) . And if so why was this stopped. Any one know ? . Maybe this way it would be more of a level playing field. Or maybe it was dangerous for horses to race & not feel pain.

I think you'll find treatment sheets or treatment notification is used in the US, but I personally have never heard of them being used here.

[Danno]

It didn't increase the horses ultimate potential. It did not enhance performance - it only allowed potential to be realised.
If that is a performance enhancer than so is water and food. Without water and food you may only race at say 25% but with it you can race at 100%. So are water and food performance enhancers too?
Something that makes the horse go to 101% is a performance enhancer.
A horse could be given something on the Tuesday, that then allows it to race on Saturday. By the Saturday it is out of its system but do we do midweek testing at stables for drugs that allowed horses to reach potential?
No, there are two different classes of drugs - ones you can have at the stables and ones you can't because they are on different levels of the spectrum.


Enhance
1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
2. To provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features

Painkillers do not make a horse greater or improve a horse. They merely allow the horses features to be met, not advanced.

Edit: I'm actually knocked up on painkillers right now with Swimmers ear and the flu. I don't think Ian Thorpe is going to be worried about me on my painkillers!

Brenno, that food and water analogy won't stand up mate, food and water are essential to life, therapeutic drugs are not.

[Danno]

I think you'll find treatment sheets or treatment notification is used in the US, but I personally have never heard of them being used here.

Treatment notification was mandatory in NSW years ago, not too sure what the situation is now. I think, if my memory serves me, they were put in place to assist in the
a) transparency of treatments and
B) instances where treatment ceased at prescibed ( eg 4 days for bute) time but a positive swab is encountered.

not going to swear by any of that, just relying on my not so perfect memory.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Treatment notification was mandatory in NSW years ago, not too sure what the situation is now. I think, if my memory serves me, they were put in place to assist in the
a) transparency of treatments and
B) instances where treatment ceased at prescibed ( eg 4 days for bute) time but a positive swab is encountered.

not going to swear by any of that, just relying on my not so perfect memory.

That is pretty close to right.

[peteboss4]

Bill is your first name Ron ??????

[triplev123]

Aspects of this thread remind me of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4smgVpcFMp8&feature=related
Nothing quite like a Cello Player in a Marching Band.

[gutwagon]

Wasn't this thread about Lance walking away from the sport if SU lost the inter final ? It looks like it could be a while before he walks anywhere ! I'm surprized that the word "karma" hasn't come up yet !
But on a serious note I wish him a speedy recovery.

[Danno]

Aspects of this thread remind me of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4smgVpcFMp8&feature=related
Nothing quite like a Cello Player in a Marching Band.

Brilliant deployment of the "funny hat " routine Jamie.

[Itisi]

Wasn't this thread about Lance walking away from the sport if SU lost the inter final ? It looks like it could be a while before he walks anywhere ! I'm surprized that the word "karma" hasn't come up yet !
But on a serious note I wish him a speedy recovery.
Just thinking would DMSO help him

[Greg Hando]

As a trainer you are supposed to keep a diary of all treatment's etc for your horse and may be asked to produce it at the request of the steward's although i have never heard of this being asked for to check.

[triplev123]

Brilliant deployment of the "funny hat " routine Jamie.

[VVV] Seeking to follow in the footsteps of my comedic idol Danno.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKblP3_EkM0 :rolleyes:

[Flashing Red]

Pain relief doesn't improve performance. It merely allows peak performance to occur.
It only allows for ability to be realised, it doesn't increase ability.

I 100% agree. :)

I have raced in a jurisdiction where DMSO is not prohibited at all. I drenched it, injected it, used it topically AT THE RACES (which was within the rules) and I will tell you now, it did not make a stitch of difference to my horse's performance and I tried it on several. I now almost soley only use it when sweating legs...

[Flashing Red]

It didn't increase the horses ultimate potential. It did not enhance performance - it only allowed potential to be realised.
If that is a performance enhancer than so is water and food. Without water and food you may only race at say 25% but with it you can race at 100%. So are water and food performance enhancers too?
Something that makes the horse go to 101% is a performance enhancer.
A horse could be given something on the Tuesday, that then allows it to race on Saturday. By the Saturday it is out of its system but do we do midweek testing at stables for drugs that allowed horses to reach potential?
No, there are two different classes of drugs - ones you can have at the stables and ones you can't because they are on different levels of the spectrum.


Enhance
1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
2. To provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features

Painkillers do not make a horse greater or improve a horse. They merely allow the horses features to be met, not advanced.

Edit: I'm actually knocked up on painkillers right now with Swimmers ear and the flu. I don't think Ian Thorpe is going to be worried about me on my painkillers!

Love your work :)

[Flashing Red]

Brenno, that food and water analogy won't stand up mate, food and water are essential to life, therapeutic drugs are not.

Without getting into a debate, because I don't, but an example of a non-essential aspect of racing that is allowed and would no doubt help performance is items such as shoeing. You will improve a horse (well probably 90%) by racing it with shoes. Only to their potential, not over. A horse racing on hay only for the most part would not race as good as a horse racing on grain and vitamins, minerals and electrolytes. Heck, jogging and fast working a horse mid week will mean it will peform better than one that spent 24 hours a day grazing in a paddock. IMHO a line needs to be drawn and it has - it is just too strict.

Wait till they start going 1:52 in every race at Menangle... perhaps the strict stance on theraputic substances will be eased a little then. The horses won't be lasting long otherwise.... :)

[triplev123]

(1) i really don't think the hard working, dedicated albiet often frustrated people administering our sport would, in the slightest, appreciate your desciption of them.

[vvv] i can guarentee you that amongst their number, those who have any idea at all with regard to this subject are few and far between.

(2) if it's in the "too hard basket", would this not mean the afformentioned administarors have looked at changing the rules on some therapeutic drugs but, as yet, cannot come up with a plan that works in a practicle way that the industry/sports participants can cope with?

[vvv] perhaps you're right. Despite such lists being freely available in other jurisdictions in the us & can publishing a simple list of thresholds and withdrawl times for various substances is probably beyond them.

(3) until it can be guaranteed that every time each horse races it is carrying the exact same doses of regulated drugs, then consistent form cannot be assured. Many of these drugs need to be administered 4 to 5 hours in advance of competition. In order for that to happen then each horse using regulated drugs needs to go to the track 4 to 5 hours before it's race. This may work at the meadowlands where the majority of the runners are stabled on site but in the land of oz where we are spread out over vast distances, the majority of horses are trained at private establishments and our game would not survive without hobby trainers, (who have a job to tend to) no wonder it's in the too hard basket.

[vvv] mate, we're now sending the best of today's horses down the road in 1:52's and subs at menangle and they're doing it week in week out and that's only going to ramp up in the next 12 months-2yrs+.

They're not going around richmond in 2:20 or the maitland showgrounds in 2:12, we're not in kansas anymore toto.

Just how long do you think we can reasonably expect them to physically hold together without a re-think of the therapeutic substances aspect of the current treatment rules?

a general burying heads in the sand & simply hoping it will all go away is not going to get it done.

as i've said many times before, what in blue blazes is there that's stopping us having on course vet administered lasix etc?

designated on course arrival 4hrs prior, lasix given by hrnsw vet.
all silent, all done. Other substances such as bute etc. would all placed on a very widely & very well publicised threshold basis ala tc02's.

in a somewhat timely manner for this subject/thread i see billy muscat's just scored a bute positive.
i will bet you london to a brick that whatever amount was in the horse, it was not at a level which was pharmacologically active. The bute test is bullshit, imo. It picks up trace amounts that do not add up to a knob of goat shit as far as their anti-inflamatory ability is concerned...the stuff is as good as water from the dam after about 12hrs and yet old mate's going to get grilled over it, regardless.
that's mindless. That's draconian. There has to be a better way.



vvv

[teecee]

Without getting into a debate, because I don't, but an example of a non-essential aspect of racing that is allowed and would no doubt help performance is items such as shoeing. You will improve a horse (well probably 90%) by racing it with shoes. Only to their potential, not over. A horse racing on hay only for the most part would not race as good as a horse racing on grain and vitamins, minerals and electrolytes. Heck, jogging and fast working a horse mid week will mean it will peform better than one that spent 24 hours a day grazing in a paddock. IMHO a line needs to be drawn and it has - it is just too strict.

Wait till they start going 1:52 in every race at Menangle... perhaps the strict stance on theraputic substances will be eased a little then. The horses won't be lasting long otherwise.... :)

Nah Nah Nah..they can't do that then.
We are relying on your horses falling over to maintain our export industry...Horses that is!!!

[Danno]

vvv

I reckon you might have "missed the point" somewhat Jamie,or are you saying it should gloves off/open slather? The vast majority of people in this game want a level playing field and they'd like to think to the rules and the administration are working to assure this.

As i said in my earlier post if all horses arriving on course 4/5 hours before competition was a workable solution and regulated drugs administered then I'm sure everyone would be fine with that....everyone that could still participate that is.

I'll repeat myself for your benefit. The vast distances we are spread out over in Australia, combined with a large percentage of horses trained by hobbyists make on course arrival 4/5 hours before competition prohibitive. The recently repealed two hour limit caused many people to have their racing options restricted and hence reduced fields. What sort of affect do you reckon 4 to 5 hours is going to have?

It's one thing to quote whats fine in "other racing jurisdictions" but quite another to come up with workable solutions.

One thing that really annoys me is people who frequently whinge but seldom provide solutions, whingeing is cheap and easy.... solutions are are a tad harder to do.

Do us all a favour and conduct a little survey of your own, ask a reasonable cross section of trainers how they would cope with on course arrival times of 4 to 5 hours pre-competition.

If you do you might get an understanding of how the people who provide the racing product are getting on and how they reckon they might handle your "solution" in todays world!

[A BIT DUSTY]

I reckon you might have "missed the point" somewhat Jamie,or are you saying it should gloves off/open slather? The vast majority of people in this game want a level playing field and they'd like to think to the rules and the administration are working to assure this.

As i said in my earlier post if all horses arriving on course 4/5 hours before competition was a workable solution and regulated drugs administered then I'm sure everyone would be fine with that....everyone that could still participate that is.

I'll repeat myself for your benefit. The vast distances we are spread out over in Australia, combined with a large percentage of horses trained by hobbyists make on course arrival 4/5 hours before competition prohibitive. The recently repealed two hour limit caused many people to have their racing options restricted and hence reduced fields. What sort of affect do you reckon 4 to 5 hours is going to have?

It's one thing to quote whats fine in "other racing jurisdictions" but quite another to come up with workable solutions.

One thing that really annoys me is people who frequently whinge but seldom provide solutions, whingeing is cheap and easy.... solutions are are a tad harder to do.

Do us all a favour and conduct a little survey of your own, ask a reasonable cross section of trainers how they would cope with on course arrival times of 4 to 5 hours pre-competition.

If you do you might get an understanding of how the people who provide the racing product are getting on and how they reckon they might handle your "solution" in todays world!

Well Said DANNO I think the majority of readers on here are well aware of what you are saying , but unlike 2 or 3 others ( no names no pack drills) who want to carry on with there little games of if one has an opinion ,No matter how fancifull it is the other 2 will go along for the ride to re enforce the original ones thoughts . when someone tries to compare the effects of BUTE with food, water, shoeing ,vitamins, jogging,etc then I think you just have to show them the contempt they deserve and let them go, knowing that every other reader on here knows whats going on. Their as predictable as night follows day.

[ringman]

This remind you of anyone
125

[A BIT DUSTY]

this remind you of anyone
125

Couldn't have put it any better Greg

[Flashing Red]

As i said in my earlier post if all horses arriving on course 4/5 hours before competition was a workable solution and regulated drugs administered then I'm sure everyone would be fine with that....everyone that could still participate that is.

I'll repeat myself for your benefit. The vast distances we are spread out over in Australia, combined with a large percentage of horses trained by hobbyists make on course arrival 4/5 hours before competition prohibitive. The recently repealed two hour limit caused many people to have their racing options restricted and hence reduced fields. What sort of affect do you reckon 4 to 5 hours is going to have?

It's one thing to quote whats fine in "other racing jurisdictions" but quite another to come up with workable solutions.

There are plenty of hobby trainers in the US and plenty and plenty of long travelling to races. Tracks are spread out just as much as they are, for example, in Victoria, New South Wales. Professionals v hobbyist and travelling time I think you would find is very similar BOTH sides of the equator. While 4 hour lasix is a bit of a pain, people don't complain about it, it is just a part of racing.

Workable solutions? I think horse trainers in the Southern Hemisphere have been spoilt way too long with 1 hour on course arrival times. Kicking up such a stink about an extra 60 minutes is proof of this (IMHO). 2 hours is nothing compared to 4 hours...

JMHO. :)

[Flashing Red]

This remind you of anyone
125

Heck at least I'm in good company... people that know what they are talking about. :P Can I be Moe? lol! :)

[triplev123]

i reckon you might have "missed the point" somewhat jamie,or are you saying it should gloves off/open slather?
[vvv] no, but that's an excellent deployment of a straw man there dan.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqq_UMMJUmqmd-f1Tm5-6ms9FAjntDstThc-kQcWm1JWEK0WNRTypQ2-0o
i am once again suggesting, as i have openly suggested on other forums for 4 or 5 years or more now, that australian racing adminstration needs to get this out of the 'too hard' basket and take a genuine look at thresholds for therapeutics.

bill muscat's recent bute charge is, as i said, imo a rather timely example.
the test for phenylbutazone is so sensitive that it picks up the presence of minute amounts and calls a positive, regardless. To my knowledge there is no threshold on that test below which it is deemed that the swab is clear.

i don't know bill from adam but whatever amount there is in that swab, given what i know of the test then i would be prepared to bet my jatz crackers that, like the overwhelming majority of other such positives, the drug wasn't found to be present in a pharmacologically active amount, that it was not in any way, shape or form providing the horse with anything even approaching that which could be reasonably referred to as being anti-inflamatory pain relief.
bute folds up its tent and goes home after 12hrs. See for yourself. Do your own experiment. Give it to a horse with a foot abscess for example and then watch how long it takes for the soreness to return.
nonetheless, old mate's now got a case to answer. Imo pragmatism has long ago been tossed out the window and it has been replaced with a thoughtless, blinded form of enforcement...replaced with an 'it's easier to ban everything and jam the trainer than it is to establish thresholds for a range of therapeutics' scenario. In this day & age, imo, that's just not good enough.

the vast majority of people in this game want a level playing field and they'd like to think to the rules and the administration are working to assure this.

[vvv] cogito ergo sum.

as i said in my earlier post if all horses arriving on course 4/5 hours before competition was a workable solution and regulated drugs administered then i'm sure everyone would be fine with that....everyone that could still participate that is.

[vvv] pretty to watch that. Take one aspect mentioned then extrapolate to the utmost, make it a blanket rule that does not even exist and then commence to yell that the sky is falling by way of participants being unable to comply with said non existant rule. you've got that old straw man routine locked down dan. You've turned it into an art form.
that one 4hr pre race arrival is an example of the lasix administration at the meadowlands...it is 4hrs prior. if your horse doesn't need lasix then you don't have to be there 4hrs prior.
god only knows what you'd have come up with if i mentioned a 24hrs detention barn for big $$$ feature events.

i'll repeat myself for your benefit.
[vvv] one more time for the people up the back in the cheap seats.

the vast distances we are spread out over in australia, combined with a large percentage of horses trained by hobbyists make on course arrival 4/5 hours before competition prohibitive.
[vvv] i'll not mention your debating method by name anymore.
A picture should suffice.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:and9gcrqq_ummjumqmd-f1tm5-6ms9fajntdstthc-kqcwm1jwek0wnrtypq2-0o
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:and9gcrqq_ummjumqmd-f1tm5-6ms9fajntdstthc-kqcwm1jwek0wnrtypq2-0o
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqq_UMMJUmqmd-f1Tm5-6ms9FAjntDstThc-kQcWm1JWEK0WNRTypQ2-0o
the recently repealed two hour limit caused many people to have their racing options restricted and hence reduced fields. What sort of affect do you reckon 4 to 5 hours is going to have?
[vvv] See the happy Straw gentleman sitting quietly above.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:and9gcrqq_ummjumqmd-f1tm5-6ms9fajntdstthc-kqcwm1jwek0wnrtypq2-0o
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:and9gcrqq_ummjumqmd-f1tm5-6ms9fajntdstthc-kqcwm1jwek0wnrtypq2-0o

it's one thing to quote whats fine in "other racing jurisdictions" but quite another to come up with workable solutions.

[vvv] do you honestly think that australia has some sort of a mortgage on distances, travel times and hobbyist/part time trainer participants that our US & CAN industry counterparts do not have to deal with? ground control to major tom...

one thing that really annoys me is people who frequently whinge but seldom provide solutions, whingeing is cheap and easy.... Solutions are are a tad harder to do.

[vvv] there's the hook dan.
you see, i am providing/suggesting solutions on this subject...solutions to trainers getting jammed up on bullshit positives because racing administration in this country is too reticent, complacent or just too god damned brain dead to consider an alternative.
On the other hand, you're the one who is wanting to adopt a 'hang back and let's just see where our leaders lead us' approach. If old mate hadn't gotten in his boat and sailed off for the piece to show the earth was round, we'd still be working off flat earth maps.

do us all a favour and conduct a little survey of your own, ask a reasonable cross section of trainers how they would cope with on course arrival times of 4 to 5 hours pre-competition.

[vvv] us all? Hmmm.
as in you feel that you speak for the majority then?
elected yourself representative i take it?
as for he rest of that piece...it's time for old mate to make his 3rd appearance.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:and9gcrqq_ummjumqmd-f1tm5-6ms9fajntdstthc-kqcwm1jwek0wnrtypq2-0o
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:and9gcrqq_ummjumqmd-f1tm5-6ms9fajntdstthc-kqcwm1jwek0wnrtypq2-0o
if you do you might get an understanding of how the people who provide the racing product are getting on and how they reckon they might handle your "solution" in todays world!
[vvv]...and that makes 4 straw fellows.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:and9gcrqq_ummjumqmd-f1tm5-6ms9fajntdstthc-kqcwm1jwek0wnrtypq2-0o

pity really, with 6 you get egg roll.
you could play doris day, denny could be brian keith.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:and9gcrqq_ummjumqmd-f1tm5-6ms9fajntdstthc-kqcwm1jwek0wnrtypq2-0o




vvv

[triplev123]

Well Said DANNO I think the majority of readers on here are well aware of what you are saying , but unlike 2 or 3 others ( no names no pack drills) who want to carry on with there little games of if one has an opinion ,No matter how fancifull it is the other 2 will go along for the ride to re enforce the original ones thoughts . when someone tries to compare the effects of BUTE with food, water, shoeing ,vitamins, jogging,etc then I think you just have to show them the contempt they deserve and let them go, knowing that every other reader on here knows whats going on. Their as predictable as night follows day.

[VVV] Old mate once again.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqq_UMMJUmqmd-f1Tm5-6ms9FAjntDstThc-kQcWm1JWEK0WNRTypQ2-0o

[A BIT DUSTY]

vvv

Typical tripple Dribble he gets trumped on something and goes into holier than thou rant that makes no sense . Has anyone else ( outside the secret coven} noticed the more he gets proven wrong the bigger and sillier his replies and how that often contain childish photo's or you tube sites , maybe he actually thinks someone finds them funny!! It's really say's a lot about someone when they start putting pictures of straw men on their post to try and belittle others ,not to mention Dorris Day and Brian Keith ref .

[triplev123]

Hey Denny, here's the rub Trooper. Go and educate yourself just a tad on the subject at hand and then come back and we'll have an informed debate about it, Ok? Can't be fairer than that. Shop around, you'll not beat that price.
Flashing knows exactly what I am talking about. Plenty of others do too. The winds of change are blowing mate. In the next 18 months-2 years you'll see some very significant changes in this area. I know that for a fact. If you want to bury your head in the sand then that's your choice but as far as I'm concerned it is far better to attempt to shape policy than it is to mindlessly fight it.

[triplev123]

Btw, Denny, I'll send you a PM with my e-mail, send me one and I'll send back to you a very interesting document covering much of the above. Have a look how it COULD be done then let me know what you think.

[Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild]

Typical tripple Dribble he gets trumped on something and goes into holier than thou rant that makes no sense . Has anyone else ( outside the secret coven} noticed the more he gets proven wrong the bigger and sillier his replies and how that often contain childish photo's or you tube sites , maybe he actually thinks someone finds them funny!! It's really say's a lot about someone when they start putting pictures of straw men on their post to try and belittle others ,not to mention Dorris Day and Brian Keith ref .
Dont bother coming on here and having a different opinion to the great one. He'll just a) google some obscure piece of tripe b) drop a name c) bring out the famous 'straw man' (my personal favorite).

[triplev123]

...said he who wears an All Blacks jumper.

[triplev123]

So then, out with it Leigh.
Don't go pulling the Little Sir Echo routine then running away.
What's your grand plan?

[Danno]

http://www.justtools.com.au/categoryimage_19_thumb.jpg?width=120&height=120 (http://www.justtools.com.au/category19_1.htm) http://www.justtools.com.au/categoryimage_20_thumb.jpg?width=120&height=120 (http://www.justtools.com.au/category20_1.htm) http://www.justtools.com.au/categoryimage_89_thumb.jpg?width=120&height=120 (http://www.justtools.com.au/category89_1.htm) http://www.justtools.com.au/categoryimage_15_thumb.jpg?width=120&height=120 (http://www.justtools.com.au/category15_1.htm)

These remind me of tripple dribble..power TOOLS. and they're completely useless on thier own.

[A BIT DUSTY]

Heck at least I'm in good company... people that know what they are talking about. :P Can I be Moe? lol! :)

Funny I recall a little bloke with a swept over hair and a funny little mo the Used to say the same . does Hail Hitler ring a bell?

[triplev123]

Dan, would it be too much to ask of you to put forward a few ideas of your own?
It's easy for you & old mate Denny to take shots at anyone who does...where's your plan Stan? How about you Denny?
Don't you go with the 'let's maintain the status quo' either routine because, as I said, it has about 18 months/2 years at the most to run.
Given the way the wind is likely to blow on the question of therapeutics, what sort of measures do you two think need to be put in place?
As I said before, easy to sit back and put shit on things but THINGS are going to change & soon. Best that we all attempt to influence policy than have it rammed down our throats in a much less palatable format. Try not to shoot the messenger.

[Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild]

...said he who wears an All Blacks jumper.
When?

[ringman]

The only thing thats going to change soon is pools will get smaller and punters running away from the game no matter how much they raise prizemoney.

No punters means no harness racing as we know it or better still knew it

[Flashing Red]

Funny I recall a little bloke with a swept over hair and a funny little mo the Used to say the same . does Hail Hitler ring a bell?

As did Confuscious! :) You're point? :)

[A BIT DUSTY]

Dan, would it be too much to ask of you to put forward a few ideas of your own?
It's easy for you & old mate Denny to take shots at anyone who does...where's your plan Stan? How about you Denny?
Don't you go with the 'let's maintain the status quo' either routine because, as I said, it has about 18 months/2 years at the most to run.
Given the way the wind is likely to blow on the question of therapeutics, what sort of measures do you two think need to be put in place?
As I said before, easy to sit back and put shit on things but THINGS are going to change & soon. Best that we all attempt to influence policy than have it rammed down our throats in a much less palatable format. Try not to shoot the messenger.

Jaimie firstly I don't have all the answers , I doubt any of us do , but I can't understand why we are not racing on lasex like the states ,the old safety issue for mine was contradictive
as imo having a horse haemorage mid race is more dangerous than any of the reasons they are giving us for not using it . I'm sure people with a bleeder (and I have been) would gladly put up with the imposition of having to arrive at the track 4hrs early( I would've turned up the week before if they let me use it ) Bute is another thing altogether as it definitely mask pain( to give you an example this morning I went to feed my mare and foal ,the mare was that lame on both her offside hind and near side fore legs that she could barely hobble to her feed. after going over her from head to foot and not finding any signs of injury then making about 3 phone calls to people whom opinion I respect and still not knowing what could be wrong with her I gave her 15ml of Bute and decided to wait and see how she responds and if she is no better in the morning I'll get the burglars (vet's) out , Iv'e just returned from checking on her again and whilst you can see that she is not 100%, the difference is amazing , she walked over to me as if she was a different horse. So with something that can mask that sort of pain I personally would not like to see us be able to race on it. In saying that I would like to see the fresh hold level increased so that you could treat a horse closer to race time ,knowing as you pointed out Jaimie that the masking effect wears off very quickly .ie your racing Sat night your horse bangs it's leg on something on Tuesday ,leg blows up you give a dose of Bute swelling and pain subside in a day or two and your right to race Sat , The EFFECT of the Bute is long gone but traces are still in the system which under our present rules mean you go positive.

Mate it's beer o'clock and I've got some friends comming over for a BBQ soon (you might even guess who one of them is lol) so I'll have to leave it at that for now , but will promise to get back with some more of old Dusty's wisdom for all to share ha ha ha.

cheers and I mean that in real terms (hic) Denny

[A BIT DUSTY]

As did Confuscious! :) You're point? :)

Just a little gee up but he did think that he and his mob were the superior race , so I guess that was the point of my Hitler analogy.

Cheers Denny

[Danno]

Dan, would it be too much to ask of you to put forward a few ideas of your own?
It's easy for you & old mate Denny to take shots at anyone who does...where's your plan Stan? How about you Denny?
Don't you go with the 'let's maintain the status quo' either routine because, as I said, it has about 18 months/2 years at the most to run.
Given the way the wind is likely to blow on the question of therapeutics, what sort of measures do you two think need to be put in place?
As I said before, easy to sit back and put shit on things but THINGS are going to change & soon. Best that we all attempt to influence policy than have it rammed down our throats in a much less palatable format. Try not to shoot the messenger.

So Jamie wants to place nice now eh?
Tell you something funny, last night I went over to a mates place for a BBQ and a few beers, we had a cackle over this forum and it's various characters, but he biggest laugh we got was when a new charactor we "invented".... no thats not right it's more of an existing character we sorta renamed... anyway more about that later.

I think a sensible debate on the subject of the controlled use therapeutic drugs could be a good thing,I'm not so sure we will have any say in shaping any new policy as I reckon given the history of this game we're silly enough to participate in, a new policy will be shaped elsewhere and foisted upon us as "the answer" with very limited input from participants.

But it can't hurt to kick a few ideas around.

I have started a new thread.