Hrnsw keeping up to the mark

Brad

You have missed the point when HRNSW stewards dealt with this matter it was not recognized that this substance could be and most likely was, given the time of year, ingested naturally.

My point is these people would have under the new penalty guidelines been disqualified for a minimum of 12 months ... the clarity of hindsight would say that was not appropriate but how do you give them the time back.

There is no doubt the RAD board and Racing NSW before them have got it right, its HRNSW who got it wrong a couple of years back through no fault of their own as the information was not available.

Bill

I took your point but I think you are making an error in saying they would receive a minimum DQ of 12 months, the way I read it, its a maximum of 12 months with the possibility of reduction with compelling evidence. The Class 1 and 2 are minimimum DQs.

Surely HRNSW are learning more each time these 'odd' cases come to light, I too recall the alert a few months ago about the paddocks affected and owners/trainers told to be aware their horses may be effected.. They didn't just sit on their hands, they recognised the potential for contamination and did something. Yes, Bill in the past errors in detection, source of ingestion or administration may have occurred and there may have been some penalised unfairly. I cannot speak for what has gone before. But in this instance, HRNSW has let offenders of serious infringements know that heavy penaltys apply for Class 1 and 2 but recognise the third tier for what is. A lower level misdemeanor that can be dealt with more fairly, rather than get smashed with a mandatory 12 months if proven guilty if there are extenuating circumstances.

In regard to an unfair disqualification and getting your time back if proven so, I guess that would have to be sorted out through civil courts. Again, I applaud HRNSW for sticking their nose out and having a go, not folding under pressure to water down the direction they are heading. It would seem the only folk who are unhappy are those not accepting the framework that HRNSW is laying out to operate under. Think about it, NSW is the envy of other racing jurisdictions with the increased/higher prizemoney available. No-ones holding a gun at the owners heads to race here. If they don't like it then maybe the could go to Tassie or SA to race for a pittance.

Again Brad at the time there was "NO" compelling evidence it has only come to light since.

Bill, we are both going to have to start typing slower for each other or pick up the phone. Your point is once again taken, back in 2010 HRNSW took action against two guys for synephrine positives for which has later been proven to be have been most likely ingested naturally through feed (am unaware of the trainers concerned, you may wish to tell us more about the case).That was the past.

We are now operating under new guidelines fom 3 June 2012, not retrospective ones. I would imagine if another synephrine positive(s) occurred in light of its previous history, armed with that now learned knowledge, both partys would have an understanding that there may indeed be a possibility it has been ingested, again prompting tests on feeds, paddocks, river banks etc to exclude it as a defence. I think Triple correctly stated on another topic how the rules were not a watery substance. In pharmacology there are as many proven as there are unproven theories, compounds, interactions etc where there will be many more mistakes, assumptions and incorrect allegations made before it becomes a concise science. The authority needs to keep an open mind on the subject to keep good faith with honest trainers.

Under their new arrangement they are simply stating what their expectations are. Mess with them at your own peril, take your chance in the chemist laboratories and if your story does not line up in the stewards room with the evidence available using todays standards be prepared to take a holiday. They can only adjudicate on current knowledge, not technology that has not been invented. How much more warning can they give someone. If a sign up ahead says there is a speed camera, do you barrel though it or check your speed?

VOR has led the horse (Broncobrad) to water but has failed to make him drink! Sigh sigh sigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

VOR has led the horse (Broncobrad) to water but has failed to make him drink! Sigh sigh sigh

Brenno, if I drink from that contaminated cesspool, I too will become an apologist for those who choose to sail close to the breeze.

I am gonna find it hard to explain how the synephrine came to be in my urine!!!:eek:

(If he comes back and tells me its in my blood, I'm screwed.)

[VVV] Encaptulated rather beautifully there Norman. I've replied below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NormanS

Hi triple. I think that this is approaching two different arguments (maybe even three). 1st argument ( Mark's point ) is that at the moment the rules say if you go positive then you will be outed. Hence the trainer has to manage race engagements. If you use "Phenylbutazone" then don't race within 9 days or what ever the excrection time frame is. [VVV] That's right but clearly the rules are wrong as they stand in this particular area and need to be changed. Similarly, there was a time when the Earth was thought to be flat.

2nd argument - (yours) The Active "therapeutic" time frame being used instead of excretion time frame. [VVV] Right on the money, especially so in light of the above (1st argument).

(Which is a good argument) [VVV] It sure is. Scientifically it Trumps all others too.
I know I keep banging on about Bute...however it is such a perfect example.
It is THE Poster Child substance for the institution of Therapeutic Thresholds.
Not only is it extremely effective, easy to use & widely used...but it is also very easily detected as being present as an overage or otherwise in an excretion only non active level due to it having the rather happy knack of breaking down at a very regular rate over a given timeframe post administration.
Further, the testing method already exists which can quite easily verify that the initial amount given & stated the time of administration is correct or incorrect by way of measuring the metabolites levels at 12/24/36/72/96hrs+ by way of comparing the results to the applicable parameters.

but is reliant on:
3rd argument - Labs ability to give a quantitative as well as qualitative result. Because there are trainers out there that will push their luck and try to race right on the theraputic time frame either "backing up" or treating for effect.
[VVV] Indeed, there's the rusty hook. Thus, as a direct result of the apparently significant shortcomings in the capabilities of the testing method/s employed Trainers get the mushroom come smoke & mirrors version (i.e. the old 'any presence, no matter how small, not because we think it is active but because we are unable to quantify it' ) of that which by rights should have already be in place...that being a quantified test based on the 'therapeutic timeframe' of Bute at a stated dose as opposed to the open ended no matter what you have done you are well and truly rooted 'excretion timeframe'...(borrowing your spot on terminology there Norman)

VVV

It's really simplicity in itself!
It's called 'DRUG FREE RACING' If you want to push the boundaries, wear the consequences. If the rules are enforced correctly then everyone might begin to think that they are racing on a 'level playing field'.
How good is that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Brad

You have missed the point when HRNSW stewards dealt with this matter it was not recognized that this substance could be and most likely was, given the time of year, ingested naturally.

My point is these people would have under the new penalty guidelines been disqualified for a minimum of 12 months ... the clarity of hindsight would say that was not appropriate but how do you give them the time back.

There is no doubt the RAD board and Racing NSW before them have got it right, its HRNSW who got it wrong a couple of years back through no fault of their own as the information was not available.

G'day VOR,
with all due respect to your knowledge on this.....the law/rules/legal arguement have , in my opinion, far too much fluidity already, leading to successful argument for guilty people, which , obviously is counter to the justice most people seek ( most people meaning a majority) .. we live in a 'democracy" supposedly.

The point you are pressing is basically defending people on the very unlikely possibility of accidental dosing, sure it can happen and does! the question is how many cheats do you let go for the convicted innocent??

I personnally believe our legal system/society has gone a little too far in the quest for total justice to the point victims are being treated less equally than perpetrators and I'm definitely not in favour of any further develpment of this particular bullshit.

I, like all honest people am sick to the back teeth of the bullshit legal argument that allows cheats to continue on their way, and yes if I happened to get a positive for my horses consuming something in the paddock, I would be happy to defend myself on the merits of that case.....thats fine and you have my word.
Cheers,
Dan

Lee, that's really simplistic...in and of itself.