Lance and Lawyers!

Bute has no affect on a horse's performance after 12 hours, yet its withdrawl is 7 days. The chemists can tell, by the way the drug breaks down in the body, when it stops having any direct affect, despite it still being present, yet if you give it at 5 days, not 7, and get a positive, you're out for 6 months for something that wouldn't help you in a race anyway!

Being a banned substance in Australia doesn't mean something is performance enhancing... and for the record, there is also a threshold of allowable DMSO in a horse's system. While it can be used in conjunction with other substances, remember the positive here is for DMSO only and nothing else.

Witchazel is also a carrier and there are many others...

Hi Flashing Red, So I suppose the bottom line is you present your horse to race in a "drug free" condition as required. If this is to the contrary you are then charged with failing to do so.

G'day all,

The rank stupidity in this general area is that for a whole host of commonly administered equine maintenance drugs there are no thresholds set below which they are deemed to be pharmacologically inactive and therefore no positive is called/recorded.
You can give a horse Bute 5 days out, have it become totally inactive 4 & 1/2 days out & yet you can still score a positive for it. Ridiculous.
The same goes for a garden variety Penicillen injection as it contains Procaine...a Local anesthetic included to take the edge off the pain when it is injected.
You can give that to a horse and many days later you can still score a positive based on the metabolites of an Opiate being detected.
This clearly absurd situation arises despite the fact there is no way known that the original Procaine component of the Penicillen Antibiotic injection is having any demonstrable level of pharmacological effect whatsoever.
Harness Racing Administration both at a State & National level needs to take a long hard look at this subject...and then get of their respective Cans and do something constructive.
For too long their preferred option has been to throw it in the 'too hard' basket. That is simply not good enough, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighty Atom

Hi Flashing Red, So I suppose the bottom line is you present your horse to race in a "drug free" condition as required. If this is to the contrary you are then charged with failing to do so.

Just think what doctors, lawyers, teachers etc have to do to loose their livelihood. Not just their job, their LIVELIHOOD. Doctors would be gross negligence, as would be solicitors (or misappropriating client funds, etc) - and teachers just about have to molester their children. Is presenting a horse, I ask you, with a substance in its system that has had no affect on it for days, does not give it an advantage in a race, deserving of the same treatment as what it would take in an ordinary profession to be stripped of the rights to one's livelihood? I should think not, IMHO! Take a race off someone, sure - but give them 6 - 12 and for them to loose their livelihood? The gallops and greyhounds do not have as near serious punishments as us. Why should we put up with it? Are you a trainer in the industry? Are you OK that your livelihood can be taken away from substances that are not performance enhancing?

Hi triplev, I agree,however it would mean that every drug administered with the propensity to return a positive would have to be verified by a vet to safe-guard the trainer. It's probably similar to the US system at the moment. But with America presently forcing a bill through to prevent any race-day medication - Therapeutic or otherwise - I can't see our racing administrators removing their hands from underneath their posterior to do anything in a hurry.

Hi Flashing Red,
Do agree with you;take the race away from the trainer but no suspension on a non performance enhancing drug. It's a lot different from a trainer deliberately drugging a horse to pull off some sought of betting plunge. Although I don't think this happens very often these days it was quite common many years ago.

Was just wondering if a date had been set for Lance's positive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

Just think what doctors, lawyers, teachers etc have to do to loose their livelihood. Not just their job, their LIVELIHOOD. Doctors would be gross negligence, as would be solicitors (or misappropriating client funds, etc) - and teachers just about have to molester their children. Is presenting a horse, I ask you, with a substance in its system that has had no affect on it for days, does not give it an advantage in a race, deserving of the same treatment as what it would take in an ordinary profession to be stripped of the rights to one's livelihood? I should think not, IMHO! Take a race off someone, sure - but give them 6 - 12 and for them to loose their livelihood? The gallops and greyhounds do not have as near serious punishments as us. Why should we put up with it? Are you a trainer in the industry? Are you OK that your livelihood can be taken away from substances that are not performance enhancing?

Being general here to be fair to everyone....
Any trainer who has had a positive showed negligence in presenting a horse with DMSO in its system, misapprropiated somebodies betting funds and molested every other trainer with a horse in the race.
So the doctor stuck an unsterilised knife in somebody. That affects one person and their family. Not a whole sport. Fairly or unfairly for harness racing one trainers actions tarnishes the sport whereas one doctors actions do not tarnish the whole medical profession. Similarly, one solicitor mucking up doesnt give every solicitor a bad name. One teacher touching up somebody doesnt give all schools a bad name. One trainer presenting a horse over the legal limit (whether you agree with it or not) tarnishes the whole sport.
You will also find most professions dont have suspensions but disqualifications.
A trainer may be their own boss at their stables. But really they play under HRNZ/HRA (or whatever the jurisdiction is) rules. They are like an employee of Harness Racing. If I don't work to what is expected of me in my workplace I lose my job because my boss sacks me. If trainers dont work to what is expected of them they get the chop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Being general here to be fair to everyone....
Any trainer who has had a positive showed negligence in presenting a horse with DMSO in its system, misapprropiated somebodies betting funds and molested every other trainer with a horse in the race.
So the doctor stuck an unsterilised knife in somebody. That affects one person and their family. Not a whole sport. Fairly or unfairly for harness racing one trainers actions tarnishes the sport whereas one doctors actions do not tarnish the whole medical profession. Similarly, one solicitor mucking up doesnt give every solicitor a bad name. One teacher touching up somebody doesnt give all schools a bad name. One trainer presenting a horse over the legal limit (whether you agree with it or not) tarnishes the whole sport.
You will also find most professions dont have suspensions but disqualifications.
A trainer may be their own boss at their stables. But really they play under HRNZ/HRA (or whatever the jurisdiction is) rules. They are like an employee of Harness Racing. If I don't work to what is expected of me in my workplace I lose my job because my boss sacks me. If trainers dont work to what is expected of them they get the chop.

That does not still explain the stark comparisons in fines, suspensions and disqualifications between the gallopers / greyhounds and the harness code.

Quote:

Similarly, one solicitor mucking up doesnt give every solicitor a bad name. One teacher touching up somebody doesnt give all schools a bad name. One trainer presenting a horse over the legal limit (whether you agree with it or not) tarnishes the whole sport.

I completely disagree, and I think its a harness racing mentality. It doesn't even make the newspaper when a greyhound trainer gets a positive most times neither will it with the gallopers. But we have articles and articles, newspaper time, radio time etc even for Joe Blow who trains 5 horses and got a high TC02 or a positive to bute. THAT is what tarnishes out sport, the ridiculous media coverage on positive swabs and our completely unfair and far too lengthy suspensions and disqualifications that are so easily given at a drop of a hat. I think the gallopers are particularly professional in dealing with positives and I wish our code would follow their suit. Our sport comes off worse because our guys get a disqualification where the galloping and greyhound folk get a fine or perhaps a suspension not to mention when a harness trainer gets a positive it is headline news. If a galloping guy gets a positive it does not tarnish the whole galloping code - why should it with the harness code? :(

My comments were also in regards to the fact that chemists can tell when a substance no longer has ANY affect on a horse, despite still be present, in some form or another, in their system. Why should someone potentially loose their livelihood when they were gaining no advantage in the race in anyway shape or form? How is that cheating the system, the punters, the other trainers, whoever else you mentioned, if no advantage is actually received? The idiot who decides to use bute the day of a race, well now that is another story - he's a fool and deserves some sort of disqualification. I would regard that as cheating the punters, owners, other trainers etc as you have outlined. If Australian harness racing wants a drug free policy - fair enough, I respect that. But don't hand out the same punishment when the substance in question had no affect on one horse, due to a longer withdrawal, than the other, who was administered a substance (the same or another, doesn't matter etc) close enough that an unfair disadvantage will be obtained in a race. Further, another thing for thought. For years vets have told trainers the withdrawal in Australia for Banamine/Flunixin is 72 hours. They now say 96. Why? Because it took a few people getting positives, who THOUGHT they were playing by the rules, following withdrawal times, to get positives. Testing is getting more advanced which means substances can be detected for a lot longer in a horse's system than they use to be. I do not have a problem with that, I 100% support advances in testing. What I have a problem with is these very people now have a tarnished record yet they have tried to play by the rules - and in some cases loose their licence. Several years ago now, but injectable bute was a 5 day withdrawal - now its 6 and some vets will even say 7. Do you know why? As above! Advances in testing that gave a handful of people positives which inturn increases withdrawal times.

Another thing I also disagree with is the presumption of GUILT with positive swabs. You say a trainer who gets a positive must have been negligent. In our criminal justice system, there is a presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty and one must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (99.9%). The prosecutor must prove guilt and the defendant can raise defences on the balance of probabilities (51%) that the prosecutor must then negate beyond a reasonable doubt (99.9%). This onus is reversed in the racing industry. Why? Why cannot we have the same standard we hold so important in our CJS? Further, the second or horseman's swab - if that comes back clear, I believe that whole matter should be dropped. But I personally know that that has not been the case for a number of people. Sure, their disqualification/suspension/fines may be reduced but they are still punished. Why is that? If one swab is positive and one is negative - why can't the trainer get the benefit of the doubt? Or must everyone be punished "just in case" they really did do something? There is a saying I learnt earlier on in my degree that better 10 guilty men go free than an innocent man go to gaol. Obviously the scenario is slightly different here, no-one is being locked up - but their training record is tarnished.

I am 1000000% in support of pre race and post race testing of every single horse in every race if money was no option. I think 1-2 random post race swabs should be taken from every race in every meeting in Australia. I think guards should be placed on all horses in Group 1 races. I just think we need a better system overall. Since the testing labs can distinguish when substances no longer have an affect on a horse, I think that anyone returning a positive should get a fine - not loose their license like they may very well now for certain substances (personally I don't think anything should happen at all, no advantage was received, but I respect this country's drug free racing policy). I think if second samples come back clear, matters should be dropped immediately.

I'm putting a simley face on now :) in case I came across too strong. :) I dunno, I guess I look at this whole topic personally: I feel, what if I have tried to abide by the rules of Australian Harness Racing and heaven forbid return a swab for something? I could not think of a more devastating blow. A tarnished record, hurt pride, criticism from all and sundry - being labelled a drug cheat. And it might be something as silly as withdrawal times needing to be extended and me being the scapegoat for it :( I felt I had a "near miss" in America - you can give bute up to 24 hours before a race over there. So at 28 - 30 hours out (I always gave myself a buffer to be sure) I gave the horse some bute paste. Now, my vet did not tell me to allow an extra 24 hours for paste as it is metabolised a little slower. Bear in mind, I had only every bought bute past off my vet - I didn't even have a bottle of the injectable stuff. What if I had gone over the allowable threshold and got a positive? The horse ended up winning and was tested - someone commented later on that day "hope that bute past is OK" and I was mortified of their answer when I asked why. I got my vet to ring her boss (the head vet who owned the practice) and he thought because I gave a little less than the normal amount (another 'safety' precaution because I was paranoid) I should be OK. I was, but I woke up sick every morning for 2 weeks worrying about it. It would have only been a fine, I'm not sure if I would have lost the race or not, but that's besides the point. I would have officially had a positive swab - I couldn't think of anything worse! :(

One more thing - to be fair, I must admit I use to be very black and white about the whole positive thing, much as you yourself are Breno and also Mighty Atom (and I was on both of your sides!). Perhaps my degree has clouded my thoughts on the whole process, because I must confess my opinions on drug testing and charges have changed since furthering my education in this field. Perhaps I do overanalyse it, maybe it really is a black and white topic. Regardless, it is something I am very passionate about and I really do have the industry (and its participants) at heart. :)