However way you want to look at it , it may end up a debacle for L.J.
Printable View
However way you want to look at it , it may end up a debacle for L.J.
It's a thorough disgrace when trainers who have been charged with a positive swab are aloud to continue racing accumulating stakes money along the way until such time the case has been decided. In New Zealand this could be many months.....what a joke.
Hi Mighty Atom
Yes it is a disgrace that it take's to long for the case to be decided, But untill the penalty is handed down why shouldn't they be able to train. It's not the trainers fault that it take's so long for the case to be decided.
I tend to agree as it sucks for opposition that they might be racing against a cheat. But Lance or whoever would be laughing all the way to the court room and then the bank if it was later found out they're innocent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty Atom
I just can not see any way at all that this will not be going against Justice and for him to lose the ID11 title. Anything less would make the NZ harness authorities a complete laughing stock.
They've got strict zero-tolerance anti-doping rules and limits . If you allow them to be set aside and overridden just because the race is the premier Australasian harness race of the year or who the trainer/driver is , then it will be a very bad look indeed.
In my mind it's case over. The rules have been proven broken by both swab results, no matter how or why or who is to blame, the race was won illegally competing against horses that competed within the stated NZ harness anti-doping rules. The race should be taken away from Justice.
Exclusive of the rights and wrongs of Lance's particular problem...the JCA is THE BIGGEST LAUGHING STOCK of all Ozninja. The NZ system needs a complete overhaul. It's a shambles.
Back on point as far as Lance's particular problem is concerned...purely on a reasonable doubt basis I'd harbour very serious reservations about DMSO prosecutions. I say this not by way of taking Lance's part or anything of the sort, but rather simply because DMSO is such an incredible substance...it is so super soluable and so able to extremely rapidly & very deeply penetrate mamalian skin/membrane that the possibilities for contamination must be absolutely massive. Further still is the fact that the chemical structure of DMSO leaves it with an extremely high boiling point, something up close to 200 degrees C, and if I recall my Chemistry correctly, such substances also tend to have the rather happy knack of hanging around forever, disapating/evaporating very slowly as a result...this as opposed to say a chemical such as Alcohol which has a low boiling point of around 80 degrees C and so disapates/evaporates quickly.
Assuming you don't have one, but when you take out your own training license you will sing a different tune. What you proposed is incredibly harsh and is tarring all positives (and trainers that received them) with the same brush. Not even some large scale corporate crimes, that affect a larger number of people than the mugs that bet on harness racing, would receive such a fine! Furthermore, such a proposal does not take into account prior record, the substance itself etc. There should be aggravating and mitigating factors - not "oh you've got a positive, hand over X amount of dollars decided on the costs of legal fees and the amount of money bet on your horse!"Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
You'll need to come up with something else, Breno :) We're trying to make the system fairer, not stuck in the dark ages! :P
Without knowing specifics of the process...Do you think its fair HRNSW might be paying say 5 people for a 2 days to clear up a case, the person gets found guilty and gets fined $500. In those 2 days HRNSW wages might have been $1000 plus they had to call in a couple of reserve stewards Bathurst and Penrith because said stewards were at the hearing. Is this fair?
Do you think its fair punters lose thousands? Or do you have contempt of their dollar because they're 'mugs'.
100% of the time the answer is no its not fair.
My 'theory' if you like may not be perfect but there are instances where it would be absolutely fair.
G'day Breno,
I think what we need in place here in Oz are rules that are in keeping with the NRL penalties system.
I'm not a football fan by any means, I'd choose to smash by Jatz Crackers between a brick and a farrier's anvil rather than sit down and watch a game of Rugby League, but I am a fan of their judiciary come regulatory set up.
They have over-arching signed code of conduct agreements in place, there are discounts for early guilty pleas and for those who stand their ground & are then found guilty there mandatory minimum sentences for various transgressions etc. Backing it all up is the fact that it is ALL tied in to initially being granted permission to play.
I can't see any reason why we cannot put something similar in place for all participants which is directly tied to the Licences of owners, strappers, trainers, drivers etc. Licences need to be such that for the really heinous end of the transgression spectrum they can be revoked at any time or otherwise the controlling body can simply refuse to renew them if the person concerned is deemed to be undesirable.
Of course, my greatest and basically only fear under such a system is that the reason/s why those kinds of rules/regulations were put in place may somehow get itself lost in the wash...ala the change of tactics rules...with participants falling victim to overtly harsh, irregular & incorrect interpretations thereof.
The whole thing would have to be drafted in such a way as to be so black and white that there would be no NO WIGGLE ROOM LEFT for Participant or Regulatory Authority, both parties being bound by their rights and responsibilities as laid out & mutually agreed upon from the outset.
Well put triple. Also agree that here in NZ the JCA are a joke and things need changed. I myself are currently under suspension because at a trial a few weeks ago I was told incorrectly by the starter where to line up. I called the starter, something begining with the letter F and ending with WIT.....Well you'd think I had something to do with planning 9/11.
However I took my penalty and unlike so many, I didn't appeal. Having said that.....I had no right of appeal :-)