Printable View
Now the B sample has come back positive, making the swab for the ID 11 Final positive not irregular, the lawyer speak begins. For someone with nothing to hide, as Lance said at the start, his lawyer now does all the talking. . . . why, it is not a criminal matter Lance, why so afraid, has the ego deflated?
Or seeking to cover your ass. Sounds like the latter.
More to come . . .
Fingrz, Your apparent delight at the positive from SU is sickening. Lance is the best thing for this sport. He is like Anthony Mundine, love him or hate him he draws press. With that comes money. Harness Racings handling of this matter has been disgraceful. We continue to shoot ourselves in the foot with these things. Can we not learn something from the gallops code? This is a sad case regardless of the truth because the horse is without a doubt an out and out star, with or without DMSO.
So a new poster, although with threads dedicated to the Smoken Up saga, starts a thread about Lance and Smoken Up.Quote:
Originally Posted by fingrzthekooler
There is dislike, distrust and anger at drug users....but then there is hate, bitterness and spitefulness at individuals. Whatever your gripe is I hope you find justice; but you are one sad individual.
imo its going to be very hard to retain the race , its such a shame and harness racing will come off the biggest loser no matter what the outcome is.
What a stupid post. It's a panel of stewards against a single trainer - sometimes things can be said that come across the wrong way and can be used AGAINST ONE to their DETRIMENT. Even a good, honest to God christian could get caught out not explaining themselves properly. Getting a lawyer does NOT mean someone has something to hide. It means they are doing their very best to get their side of the story / evidence across without inadvertently prejudicing themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by fingrzthekooler
It's funny, since doing my law degree I find that how hearings are run in harness racing (perhaps it is the same for the gallops and the dogs, but I'm not sure) go against things such as natural justice and procedural fairness that I have learnt about. *shrugs*
100% agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by montana
It should be remembered that this case is based on NZ rules and hearings will be based on how they do it. Stewards are prosecutors only. Not judge and jury as well like in Oz. Case will be heard and judged by independent panel. Charges issued are likely to be under trainers absolute liability. It will be for him to prove he has done everything possible to ensure horse has raced drug free. Some of the defence strategies I have been reading about lack of security and other shortcomings by officials are not defences to the likely charges. Claims of Not doping the horse is no defence. Most of these cases are based on negligence in ensuring Everything but Everything is done by the trainer to ensure his horse is presented to race drug free. If the trainer can't prove this then he is likely to be found guilty. He will be penalised along with the mandatory disqualification of the horse from the race concerned. Also these cases don't end up in the courts. Kiwi law courts have set many precedents of not interfering in decisions of nz's Judicial Control Authority for Racing. or further reading on how virtually impossible it will be for SU to hold this race and LJ to be exonerated go to www.jca.org.nz for further reading of previous judgements of similar cases. HRNZ v A Hunter earlier this year is a case in point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashing Red
I had no idea, thank you so much. :) I must admit that my comments were in regards to Australian hearings rather than New Zealand ones. I understand that when one gets licensed that they sign up to the bodies rules, but from some people I know and what I have been briefed on the process I don't think its entirely fair. I think an independent panel is an excellent idea, but I think its a shame that trainers / drivers are not given an option to further their cause within the legal system, if they wished... once again thanks for your post, I really appreciate it. :) I will be checking out that website later on too, thanks again! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by teecee
Interesting point.. While Lance will have a right of appeal, should he need it, to the Appeal Authority this will be, most likely based on precedence, as far as he gets as the Law Courts wont be interested.
On the other hand The RACING ACT (nz statute) ensures the decision of the JCA regarding the horse is final. The owners have NO RIGHT of APPEAL to the Appeal Authority nor the Courts. How does your legal mind get round that...
If you own Smoken Up dont spend the stake yet and forget about engaging a lawyer!!!!
Hello Gtrain, your statement that Smoken Up is an out and out star with or without the use of DMSO may or may not be the case,and weather Lance did or didn't use it is not the discussion here. If the use of DSMO had no effect on a horse's performance it would not be a banned substance. It's the fact that it can be used in conjunction with other substances is the main reason it is banned. You get the impression from previous comments that the use of DSMO is completely irrelevant because it has no affect one way or the other; this is not the case.