San Rafaella

[mightymo]

Really interesting scenario...

I wonder where this would fall under the new guidelines issued by HRNSW.

Surely the trainer cant be held repsonsible for this

[dizzy]

Certainly a tricky one Harvey, I think we may need "The Mentalist" here to determine who knew what with regard to the mares "condition"!

[Triple V]

Hollywood Hartley's RULE OF THE WEEK for mine. This is getting ridiculous. You can race on Regumate for starters so it's not a 'hormone' issue.

[dizzy]

But you can under the rules only race a mare for 120 days after she conceives, Jan service date to June race wins equals more then 120.
Of course a further "secret liason" after Jan needs to be ruled out.

[ml 111]

will the mare get DQ ?

[teecee]

will the mare get DQ ?

While not wanting to pre empt anything that may come from enquiries into this one would expect she would be disqualified from any placings and earnings since her departure to Australia. She was last served on 19 Jan 2012 and exported to Australia 3 months later. (26 apr 2012). It is likely that she was exported to Australia to continue and improve her race record only after once again testing neg pregnant. As efforts have been made for 3 years to get this valuable mare in foal then one would expect that news of her being pregnant would be a more positive news to her owners than racing outside of the 120day limit. After all the primary focus of her owners is in breeding and to finally get this lovely mare in foal after much frustration must be a real positive.

[aussiebreno]

While not wanting to pre empt anything that may come from enquiries into this one would expect she would be disqualified from any placings and earnings since her departure to Australia. She was last served on 19 Jan 2012 and exported to Australia 3 months later. (26 apr 2012). It is likely that she was exported to Australia to continue and improve her race record only after once again testing neg pregnant. As efforts have been made for 3 years to get this valuable mare in foal then one would expect that news of her being pregnant would be a more positive news to her owners than racing outside of the 120day limit. After all the primary focus of her owners is in breeding and to finally get this lovely mare in foal after much frustration must be a real positive.
Nice unintended pun teecee!

[Triple V]

I reckon it'll be a SUPER-WANK if they DQ her. Ridiculous.

[Danno]

I reckon it'll be a SUPER-WANK if they DQ her. Ridiculous.

But to quote yourself Jamie....the rules is the rules is the rules, you'd remember that surely mate?

having said that, this may be one of those rules where administrators need to get their heads out of their collective arses ?? and I'm certain you remember that as well.

now that we've established that you Jamie are allowed to adopt any stance that suits you depending on who knows what ??? maybe we can have a guessing competition around what that criteria might be ....things that make you Hmmmmm.....

[dizzy]

I'd imagine if it is established that she held to the 19 Jan service date then she would be DQed from all wins and places after 120 days from 19 Jan. The trainer wouldn't have to be penalised I would think if it can be established that he couldn't have know she was pregnant, similarly to positive swabs from horse eating vegetation that causes a postive. As Tee Cee said the owners are probably happy she is in foal (unless there was an unknown secret liason) which I believe are the stud so they are likely to be penalised by losing the wins for what was likely to be their mistake.

[mightymo]

I just did a quick calculation and I think her first win on May 11 is within 120 days

[eliteblood]

Who is the mare in foal to and where was she served ?

[mightymo]

according to HRNZ site, she was last served by mcArdle on 19 Jan 2012

[Triple V]

But to quote yourself Jamie....the rules is the rules is the rules, you'd remember that surely mate?

having said that, this may be one of those rules where administrators need to get their heads out of their collective arses ?? and I'm certain you remember that as well.

now that we've established that you Jamie are allowed to adopt any stance that suits you depending on who knows what ??? maybe we can have a guessing competition around what that criteria might be ....things that make you Hmmmmm.....

[VVV] Instead of using quotes out of context and immediately saluting any old flag that gets run up the flag pole, any chance that you could explain the rule for me Danno?
What is the physiological case for it?
Why does it exist?
What is the basis for its application in this and any other such instance?
Why is there a mandatory 120 days in place...when, for example, the average pregnancy is some 345 days give or take?
What advantage, if any, is the Trainer of a mare pregnant beyond 120 days expecting?
If there is no actual or peceived advantage to be had then why the rule?
Inquiring minds would sure like to know.

[Triple V]

according to HRNZ site, she was last served by mcArdle on 19 Jan 2012

[VVV] Geeze, poor bugger.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Interesting the way the rules in both codes are worded,

Harness

Pregnant Mares

103B. A mare or filly shall not race or perform track work after day 120 of its pregnancy.

Gallops

AR 64E. (1) No mare or filly shall race or take part in any official trial, jump-out or
trackwork after day 120 of its pregnancy.
(2) A trainer shall notify the Stewards in writing as soon as practicable –
(a) the pregnancy of any mare or filly in his charge; and
(b) the date of last service of such mare or filly

Interesting in that neither rule say the mare will not be eligible to race, which is the wording in many other rules.

[aussiebreno]

Interesting the way the rules in both codes are worded,

Harness

Pregnant Mares

103B. A mare or filly shall not race or perform track work after day 120 of its pregnancy.

Gallops

AR 64E. (1) No mare or filly shall race or take part in any official trial, jump-out or
trackwork after day 120 of its pregnancy.
(2) A trainer shall notify the Stewards in writing as soon as practicable –
(a) the pregnancy of any mare or filly in his charge; and
(b) the date of last service of such mare or filly

Interesting in that neither rule say the mare will not be eligible to race, which is the wording in many other rules.
Did I read something different to you?

[Danno]

[VVV] Instead of using quotes out of context and immediately saluting any old flag that gets run up the flag pole, any chance that you could explain the rule for me Danno?
What is the physiological case for it?
Why does it exist?
What is the basis for its application in this and any other such instance?
Why is there a mandatory 120 days in place...when, for example, the average pregnancy is some 345 days give or take?
What advantage, if any, is the Trainer of a mare pregnant beyond 120 days expecting?
If there is no actual or peceived advantage to be had then why the rule?
Inquiring minds would sure like to know.

I would have thought it would be obvious to all why the rule exists, why do we have whip rules Jamie?? The implementation of our whip rules were not driven by punters seeking fair racing, so what other external force may have been in play?

[Thevoiceofreason]

Brendon

The point I am making is this type of rule will normally say the horse is not eligible to compete, these rules do not use that terminology, I have to be honest I am not sure of the history of why these rules were introduced in the first place, if it is to protest the foal then there is no reason to disqualify the horse, if it is because it is deemed a pregnant mare gets an advantage then that may be a different story.

[dizzy]

Not sure I follow either Bill, Both seem pretty clear that a pregnant mare should not be at the races post 120 days conception, though the Tb's seem to give themselves a better chance of policing it. If it is to protect the foal then it failed in San Rafaella's foal case and surely some one (not necessarily the trainer) is at fault if the pregnancy was not the result of an unplanned/unknown mating? Many trainers will tell you that a mare often blossums after they conceive and they can improve their form as a result. Don't know if there is a cut of point physiologically to this effect and of course there is no restriction on racing a "blooming" mare to 120 days post conception.

[mango]

Hi Dot

San Rafaella's form was great before comming across from n.z so it's hard to say whether her pregnancy has inhanced her racing but i do understand your point you are making. As a guess i'd say after she was served in late January her test to see if she was infoal has come back negative which sometime's happen's so they have decided to send her over to race for better money and to get a better time next to her name before the next breeding season. Spreydon Lodge wouldn't of risked racing her if they were aware she was in foal as she has strong breeding behind her and her foal's would be worth a nice $$$$ through the yearling sale's.

[dizzy]

Mango, I didn't intend to imply that there was an intention by the stud to race her outside of the rules just that a mistake (likely simple human error) or chain of mistakes was made which resulted in the situation that has occured now needing to be resolved. The "blooming" mares was a generalisation not directed at San Rafaella form in particular.

[mango]

San Rafaella wasn't intended to be infoal as it was very late in the season so a decision was made to do an E.T on her, she was flushed at the end of january and the embryo inserted into a surrogate mare to carry the foal which she didn't hold anyway. San Rafaella herself was tested after this procedure and recieved a negative test and that is the reason she was sent to Australia. Spreydon Lodge have also informed me if they had been aware of San Rafaella being infoal there would of been no way she would of been sent to race in Australia as they have been trying to get this mare infoal for quiet a while know.

[mango]

Hi Dot

Yes i know you didn't imply that there was any intention and sorry if that's what you thought i men't by my post, hopefully the info i have just posted will clear a few thing's up for people.

[dizzy]

Makes sense Mango as to how it occured, still there has been a breach of the rules so will be interesting to see how it is dealt with

[mango]

Yes there has been a breach of the rule's but as there was know intention and all people where unaware i would be of the opinion it would have to be at the bottom end of a breach. What are the penalties for such a breach could anyone explain them into detail for me please.

[aussiebreno]

Yes there has been a breach of the rule's but as there was know intention and all people where unaware i would be of the opinion it would have to be at the bottom end of a breach. Yeah would think so, feel sorry for them really in that sense but then knowing they are just happy she's pregnant makes it better!

[Triple V]

I'd like to know why such a rule even exists in the first place????????
I've looked high and low and it seems to me that 120 days has been plucked out of the air by a person or persons unknown and with absolutely no veterinary supported documented physiological reasoning behind the number chosen other than it being roughly at the end of a mare's 1st trimester. Absolutely %&#!ing A-B-S-U-R-D!!!!!!!!!!! There's no evidence to be found anywhere that being in foal and racing presents any risk to the foal whatsoever, in fact if anything the exercise regime is instead a good thing as far as the mare's overall health is concerned.

[Triple V]

Many trainers will tell you that a mare often blossums after they conceive and they can improve their form as a result. Don't know if there is a cut of point physiologically to this effect and of course there is no restriction on racing a "blooming" mare to 120 days post conception.

[VVV] Somewhat of a moot point. Put them on Regumate (which you can freely race on) and you'll get the same result.

[strong persuader]

I'd like to know why such a rule even exists in the first place????????
I've looked high and low and it seems to me that 120 days has been plucked out of the air by a person or persons unknown and with absolutely no veterinary supported documented physiological reasoning behind the number chosen other than it being roughly at the end of a mare's 1st trimester. Absolutely %&#!ing A-B-S-U-R-D!!!!!!!!!!! There's no evidence to be found anywhere that being in foal and racing presents any risk to the foal whatsoever, in fact if anything the exercise regime is instead a good thing as far as the mare's overall health is concerned.

As an aside. I remember Hilton Bonham racing a mare, unfortunately I can't remember her name, and Hilton was mystified as to why the mare was putting on weight, never thinking she could be in foal. Anyhow the mare raced at Bathurst one night, finished third, and Hilton was astounded the next morning to find the mare happily nursing a foal!

[teecee]

Yes there has been a breach of the rule's but as there was know intention and all people where unaware i would be of the opinion it would have to be at the bottom end of a breach. What are the penalties for such a breach could anyone explain them into detail for me please.

The relevant rule is 103b.
It seems that swab samples taken from San Raf showed elevated steroid levels which on further analysis suggested pregnancy hence the breach of rule 103b.
I can't find penalties in the Aussie harness rules but 103b comes under the prohibited substance section it seems.

[mango]

Hi Tony

Thanks for the info, even though the swabs were elevated as the analysis suggests was it over the limit that is allowed and if so by how far.

[Triple V]

The relevant rule is 103b.
It seems that swab samples taken from San Raf showed elevated steroid levels which on further analysis suggested pregnancy hence the breach of rule 103b.
I can't find penalties in the Aussie harness rules but 103b comes under the prohibited substance section it seems.

[VVV] I reckon that's insane Tony. I can't for the life of me work out how a naturally occurring female hormone, one that is produced as the result of pregnancy can also be deemed a prohibited substance?
I keep waiting for the spooky music to start up & for Vic Morrow or the great Rod Serling to pop out from behind a tree. This has to be an episode of The Twilight Zone surely?

http://sharetv.org/images/the_twilight_zone_1959-show.jpg

[Thevoiceofreason]

If rule 103b is part of the prohibited substances rules I stand the season at stud.

Not that there will be any mares too interested.

[dizzy]

Mango I don't think the steroid profile is the problem, it just indicated pregnancy. Given that its June and stud season is pretty much over by mid January other then as the result of an ilicit liason she had to be pregnant for more then the 120 days permitted by the rules when the test indicated she was pregnant. The breech I should imagine will be for the 120 days not for a prohibited substance.

[Triple V]

If rule 103b is part of the prohibited substances rules I stand the season at stud.

Not that there will be any mares too interested.

[VVV] That's not what I've heard.
Mr. Bill, Mr. Bill...would you like another Orion Premium with your Prawn Laksa? :rolleyes:

[teecee]

I am confused by the way the rules of Racing in Oz are set out.
Suggest you search rule 103b under HRA website and look to the links coming from that search.
From my reading the threshold for the steroid determining pregnancy is 55mcg / litre in urine.

For the benefit of the..... rules http://www.harness.org.au/vsearch.cfm?rules

[Triple V]

You're not the only one Tony.
The way some of them are written appears to me to leave them wide open to an assault by a Lionel Hutz style 'Law Talkin' Guy'...ala Geoff Small's successful & now legenedary... 'blood is not part of the cardiovascular system' defence.
http://t.qkme.me/3pfxhc.jpg

[dizzy]

That was a real joke, but an even better one then you think- one of the expert witness's for the defence described himself as a doctor in a branch of medicine that doesn't exist!

[Thevoiceofreason]

You're not the only one Tony.
The way some of them are written appears to me to leave them wide open to an assault by a Lionel Hutz style 'Law Talkin' Guy'...ala Geoff Small's successful & now legenedary... 'blood is not part of the cardiovascular system' defence.
http://t.qkme.me/3pfxhc.jpg

The only problem of course being that the blood system, is listed in many racing rules as a separate system, and wait it is now in the Australian rules as well, what is that saying about a gate and a bolting horse.

[dizzy]

Bill so strange that racing considers blood separately from the cardio vascular system and medicine does not don't you think?

[Thevoiceofreason]

Bill so strange that racing considers blood separately from the cardio vascular system and medicine does not don't you think?

Strange as it may be Dot it is an unfortunate fact that most rule books in both codes differentiated between the two long before Australian Harness Racing saw Geoff Small jump through the loophole, but to their credit the hole has now been repaired.