Gary Hall Snr must love Retention Barns

[p plater]

This ruling puts a different light on all trainers who claim they have no idea how a horse under their care could test positive to a drug.

http://www.harness.org.au/news-article.cfm?news_id=30522

It is possible the trainer is telling the truth, NSW proves it.

[Messenger]

Interesting Bailey.
I have always thought that it cannot be a given that a horse in a retention barn means they cannot be given an illegal substance by connections or other parties
I am NOT saying that is the case here
There is no mention of examining CCTV footage but surely that would have to be examined - here I am assuming every horse would be videoed 24/7 while retained

[p plater]

If no charges against a trainer and the assumption of contaminated feed, supplied by the authorities, why does the trainer have to plead guilty to presenting to race with a banned substance. Resulting in the horse being disqualified and losing $37500 in prizemoney.
Surely the owners are entitled to be compensated by the authority for providing contaminated feed.
It is strange that only one horse tested positive to the feed provided.

[Messenger]

There were still charges against the trainer and he was found guilty/pleaded guilty but they chose not to suspend him/find him responsible.
Because it is not disputed that the horse was positive and he is the trainer maybe he has to plead guilty
And the horse/connections have to forfeit the prize as a Positive cannot be allowed to win/keep a prize

If this can happen under the retention barn system (designed to avoid the bad publicity of a winner later being disqualified - after the horse has bolted and Bets been paid) then what is the point of continuing with the system UNLESS they improve surveillance to the extent that it provides the answer to 'how it happened'

[p plater]

Kev, I understand your comments as the trainer MUST plead guilty to presenting a horse to race with a banned substance in its system.This is regardless of how it got there.
But here lies the problem to all trainers, it states

In respect of that charge, Stewards did not impose a penalty on Mr Gary Hall Snr as they were satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the detection of synephrine had resulted from contamination, with the most likely cause of that contamination being lucerne chaff which was provided to the horse during the time that it was within the HRNSW Retention Facility

Lets take this a step further, what if ALL runners were subject to a positive from contaminated feed supplied by the HRNSW during their stay in the retention barn. In this case the horses arrived on Friday for a Sunday race, obviously many feeds between this time. That would mean ALL runners disqualified and a no race. The only answer to this is all supplied feed must be tested before being offered to the trainers. Under common law this becomes a "Duty of Care" situation.

[Messenger]

I, understood that Bailey and your 'what if' they had all tested + would have been Most interesting!
Being there for such a lengthy period I would imagine that trainers would want to stick to their normal feeding regime - would this all be supplied by HRNSW?
Testing, record keeping and CCTV should all be essential in the retention barn or else there is no point to them

[Speedy]

If no charges against a trainer and the assumption of contaminated feed, supplied by the authorities, why does the trainer have to plead guilty to presenting to race with a banned substance. Resulting in the horse being disqualified and losing $37500 in prizemoney.
Surely the owners are entitled to be compensated by the authority for providing contaminated feed.
It is strange that only one horse tested positive to the feed provided.



Why do you assume any feed was provided by the authorities???
The feed is provided by the trainer.

[Messenger]

The Inquiry report says

they were satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the detection of synephrine had resulted from contamination, with the most likely cause of that contamination being lucerne chaff which was provided to the horse during the time that it was within the HRNSW Retention Facility.

It does not make it clear who supplied the chaff but reading between the lines I am not sure they even think it is relevant - they almost seem to be working on the assumption that a horse cannot be 'got at' if it is in a retention barn

[p plater]

Why do you assume any feed was provided by the authorities???
The feed is provided by the trainer.

Patrick, you may be correct but having traveled from Perth I think it is safe to say they didn't bring lucerne with them.

[Messenger]

Interesting to see Harnessbred's take on this (that somebody sent me)

http://www.harnessbred.com/agree-with-the-synephrine-zero-penalty-for-gary-hall-snr-and-clint-hall/

Whoever the author, they ask the tough questions

[p plater]

Interesting to see Harnessbred's take on this (that somebody sent me)

http://www.harnessbred.com/agree-with-the-synephrine-zero-penalty-for-gary-hall-snr-and-clint-hall/

Whoever the author, they ask the tough questions

Kev, would love to get the answers from the powers to be.