Stand the trainers down

[peteboss4]

IMO< >Maybe if HRNSW started standing the trainers down instead of the horses they will stop using, or can't they do that?? If they can not, implentment a new rule so THEY CAN:mad:.
Has this guy gone before??
Positive swab for Robert Clement

30 January 2012
http://www.harness.org.au/news/images/logos/HRNSW-2.gif


Stewards today received confirmation that the pre race blood samples taken from the pacer NEW YEARS DAY NZ which raced at Tamworth on 23 January 2012 has returned an elevated TCO2 reading above the threshold.
Therefore, it is deemed to be a positive swab.
Trainer Robert Clement has been informed and NEW YEARS DAY NZ has been stood down under Rule 183 pending the outcome of an Inquiry.

[Drivemecrazy]

I would think that standing the trainer down would be a good idea (horse until it passes a blood test). However, it may not always be the trainer (stablehands - owners - passerbys - (but normally yes the trainer)).

But Tweeking that idea perhaps? To the person found to have administered the 'drug' if no person can be associated with the attack, then the trainer automaticly .. Would ensure that the trainer kept a clean house! and did not associate or have owners that were dodgy.

any more thoughts? I would think that if a general idea can be found for punishment that the codes would look at it.

[tiny]

I like your thinking however the big problem is if they are later cleared. I think that if trainers are stood down before they are found guilty they would then have a civil case for loss of income should they later be cleared. I have this concern in regard to the Sarina's in the swab scandal and these concerns may very well play out.

I don't like what has happened of late where trainers just keep having inquiry's adjourned for months and months and keep on training but the stewards should put there feet down and say no more ajurnments or have a policy that inquiries will be herd within a set period of someone being charged. Also the recent Raglan case has proved that there is two sets of rules in regards to the standing down of horses and IMO has set a precidet that should a horse later test negative and the stewards are satisfied that the trainer will attend the inquire there is now no reason that any horse be stood down.

And as for TCO2 there is so much we don't know about it. All horses have different levels and can be impacted from just about everything including viruses, diet and even nerves or a combination of all of them. We have seen last year the two hour on course rule which saw lots get caught later dropped I believe for this very reason.

I also disagree with harness racings policy that sees all prohibited substances hold equal weight for me TCO2 is not the same as meth or EPO but under there policy it is and 12 months is the rate for a first offense no matter the substance. I would like to see TCO2 swabs tested before the race and a scratch and fine policy for tco2's but for this to work most horses would have to be tested.

[Old Frank]

Geoff Small made a mockery of stewards enquiries...

[David Summers]

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=95407

[aussiebreno]

I like your thinking however the big problem is if they are later cleared. I think that if trainers are stood down before they are found guilty they would then have a civil case for loss of income should they later be cleared. I have this concern in regard to the Sarina's in the swab scandal and these concerns may very well play out.

I don't like what has happened of late where trainers just keep having inquiry's adjourned for months and months and keep on training but the stewards should put there feet down and say no more ajurnments or have a policy that inquiries will be herd within a set period of someone being charged. Also the recent Raglan case has proved that there is two sets of rules in regards to the standing down of horses and IMO has set a precidet that should a horse later test negative and the stewards are satisfied that the trainer will attend the inquire there is now no reason that any horse be stood down.

And as for TCO2 there is so much we don't know about it. All horses have different levels and can be impacted from just about everything including viruses, diet and even nerves or a combination of all of them. We have seen last year the two hour on course rule which saw lots get caught later dropped I believe for this very reason.

I also disagree with harness racings policy that sees all prohibited substances hold equal weight for me TCO2 is not the same as meth or EPO but under there policy it is and 12 months is the rate for a first offense no matter the substance. I would like to see TCO2 swabs tested before the race and a scratch and fine policy for tco2's but for this to work most horses would have to be tested.

Agree with most of this.
You can't go standing down blokes who may later be innocent. Once that guilty verdict is reached is when the penalty starts - as frustrating as it may be waiting for that verdict in some cases.

[Danno]

[And as for TCO2 there is so much we don't know about it. All horses have different levels and can be impacted from just about everything including viruses, diet and even nerves or a combination of all of them. We have seen last year the two hour on course rule which saw lots get caught later dropped I believe for this very reason.

I also disagree with harness racings policy that sees all prohibited substances hold equal weight for me TCO2 is not the same as meth or EPO but under there policy it is and 12 months is the rate for a first offense no matter the substance.

Andy, on the first point, IMO, the TC02 infringements found during the 2 hour on course rule had nothing to do with individual horses, diets, viruses, nerves etc. It had to do with the trainers having to learn how to administer it without getting caught!

In my humble opinion, there is a big problem with TC02 that the stewards do not have the resources to control. The current upper limit for TC02 has been set so that no horse known to man , can get a positive without some form of administration of, most commonly Bi-Carbonate of Soda, regardless of it's individual metabolism etc. and herein lies the problem.
We have a rule that states no drenching of ANYTHING ( even water) within 48 hours pre competition, but there are MANY trainers drenching well within that time frame...and guess what they're drenching? Thats right it's not water!
The problem for our regulators is catching these particular cheats because busting some one in the act, with sufficient hard evidence to ensure the case is not lost is going to be time consuming,expensive and the other's are getting away while you nab this particular mob. Thats why the TC02 level is policed.

Your second point doesn't seem to take into account that Bi-Carb IS a performance enhancing sustance, just like the others mentioned, so why should they be treated differently?

Cheers,

Dan

[tiny]

Hi Dan thanks for your thoughts. For me I'm not satisfied that every horse that returns a TCO2 positive was drenched with bi carb. Please don't include the frequent flyers in the following I have no simpaty for them. Many trainers go long periods sometimes a decade sometimes two or three and then return a TCO2 positive I am not satisfied that this is because they have got away with it for so long or that it is the first time they have used it. Also have a look how often horses that put in disappointing runs return positives. That is why I like the idea of a scratch and fine policy it is a good enough deterant with out seeing trainers spend twelve months sidelined. In the perfect world all horses would be tested this would be the ultimate deterant no chance of dodging the blood man.

Can you give an explanation as to why the two hour on course arrival time was stop over night other than hrnsw had some expert advice that it was flawed.

On the point that bi carb meth and EPO are all performance improvers I agree. But for me they are not all the same. Canibus meth and heroin are all illegal drugs but IMO are not all the same. If my son came home and said he had been smoking pot I wouldn't be happy but would deal with it. If he came home and said he had been trying a bit of meth or heroin words can't describe how angry I would be. I feel the same about bi carb if my trainer said he had a positive for tco2 i would not be happy but live with it but meth no way so to me they are not the same. But I understand your point.

[aussiebreno]

Robert Clement from Opening Post

http://www.harness.org.au/news-article.cfm?news_id=20290
http://www.harness.org.au/news-article.cfm?news_id=12452
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/clement-loses-licence-after-mistaken-identity-20130514-2jjxf.html

[Greg Hando]

There was also a R Clement hooked up with the Tamworth and Gunnedah cup races (gallops) early in the week also don't know if the same one or not but arrests were apparently made.All to do with milkshaking. I heard it on the wireless on monday.

[aussiebreno]

There was also a R Clement hooked up with the Tamworth and Gunnedah cup races (gallops) early in the week also don't know if the same one or not but arrests were apparently made.All to do with milkshaking. I heard it on the wireless on monday.
FYI Greg it is the same R Clement according to the SMH article I linked in prior post.