Goodbye Lance

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????

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.

I'll take Smoken Up, if that helps!

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by p plater

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.

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?