Goodbye Lance

Was that post for me or someone else? I'm not confused about this topic.... :(

Flashing. Hi
have you read the decision on the penalties at www.hrnz.co.nz
In there the background to how the no defence rule came about.
A give and take.
Take away the defence, create a new rule with much lighter penalties.

FYI..I know that some people think I have dealings with the JCA i.e. insider
But No...I am a trainer, owner and breeder in that order.
In my spare time I study the laws in NZ as they apply to racing, the inner workings of the judicial system, and all cases.
I live with these rules, They are part of my life and should I ever need to I hope to have all the ins and outs to defend myself
This is a case I have studied closely. My personal views I still hold close to my chest and may surprise some.
ight through the many posts I have simply tried to explain how things work in NZ for us Licence holders.

The rule as it now stands is regarded by many as a protection.
Most drug cases in NZ are accidental with no malice intent.
This rule suits many as they are unable to explain events that have obviously happened through some oversight or whatever.
This rule covers these events and provides a wakeup call to transgressors.
For other serious transgressors there is another rule with much heavier penalties.
Trainers plead guilty as they are responsible for all that happens in their stable and staff.
It's the cheapest way out..Take the rap and get on with it...eh.

Racing Appeals Tribunal, High Court, or J,C,A . Can someone PLEASE acknowledge that this thing is NOT OVER , as was my original post,

Teecee the rulings you have posted above refer to presenting a horse or in the stated case Greyhound to race free of banned substance which we are all aware of and this is what Lance Justice has been found guilty of ,But what I have been trying to explain IS the appeal will be about the possibility of the horse being contaminated AFTER THE RACE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A BIT DUSTY

Racing Appeals Tribunal, High Court, or J,C,A . Can someone PLEASE acknowledge that this thing is NOT OVER , as was my original post,

Teecee the rulings you have posted above refer to presenting a horse or in the stated case Greyhound to race free of banned substance which we are all aware of and this is what Lance Justice has been found guilty of ,But what I have been trying to explain IS the appeal will be about the possibility of the horse being contaminated AFTER THE RACE

---

The High Court will be asked to perform a JUDICIAL REVIEW.
A JUDICIAL REVIEW is not a rehearing of the evidence. It is to determine whether the rule is consistent with NZ law and whether the processes of the original hearing were consistent with NZ law practice.
They have ruled previously that the rules of HRNZ and the manner that JcA hearings are held ARE consistent with NZ Law. Cropp v NZTR and JCA.

An APPEAL to the Racing Appeals Tribunal is for that Tribunal to determine if the decisions of the JCA panel were manifestly at odds with the evidence.
It is not a relitigation of the evidence or a platform for a hearing of new evidence.
Contamination was one of many issues for determination by the hearing panel and was rejected.

Contamination was one of many issues for determination by the hearing panel and was rejected.

Could this be challenged in the High Court ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teecee

The High Court will be asked to perform a JUDICIAL REVIEW.
A JUDICIAL REVIEW is not a rehearing of the evidence. It is to determine whether the rule is consistent with NZ law and whether the processes of the original hearing were consistent with NZ law practice.
They have ruled previously that the rules of HRNZ and the manner that JcA hearings are held ARE consistent with NZ Law. Cropp v NZTR and JCA.

An APPEAL to the Racing Appeals Tribunal is for that Tribunal to determine if the decisions of the JCA panel were manifestly at odds with the evidence.
It is not a relitigation of the evidence or a platform for a hearing of new evidence.
Contamination was one of many issues for determination by the hearing panel and was rejected.

---

all due respect Teecee, but the contamination issues rejected were about contamination in the samples, not about post race contamination of the horse, which is quite a separate and to my understanding an untested point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A BIT DUSTY

Contamination was one of many issues for determination by the hearing panel and was rejected.

Could this be challenged in the High Court ?

---

No. A judicial review does not look at evidence. The appeal to RAT can look at that and determine if the views of the hearing panel are consistent with the evidence they heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

all due respect Teecee, but the contamination issues rejected were about contamination in the samples, not about post race contamination of the horse, which is quite a separate and to my understanding an untested point.

---

That would be an attempt to introduce NEW evidence. You can't introduce new evidence at appeal. Basically you've had your day in court. Appeals and reviews are about whether you had a fair hearing and the verdicts are fair based on what evidence was provided at that hearing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teecee

Flashing. Hi
have you read the decision on the penalties at www.hrnz.co.nz
In there the background to how the no defence rule came about.
A give and take.
Take away the defence, create a new rule with much lighter penalties.

---

Yes.

Like I said, I understand why this case was decided the way it was (it really couldn't be determined any other way) and why there was mandatory disqualification. Initially I didn't appreciate/realise that there are fundamental differences between the way NZ and Australia do things. I do now (no doubt with the help from your posts, thank you) but that doesn't mean I agree with how things are done in NZ. I don't think Australia's way of doing things is the be all and end all, either. For example I don't agree with our stewards being the judge, jury and prosecutor in our system but that is an argument for another day.

And I do think the rules need to be revised and/or changed in NZ. It does not necessarily mean much lighter penalties, however. It's a moot point, but if this Interdom was run and won in Australia and the same thing happened (ie DMSO positive) and in regards to the numerous techicalities, that were listed in the decision, that I have read, I have no doubt in my mind that the charges would have been dismissed. I have seen/read of them being dismissed in Australia for much more trivial circumstances than those in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teecee

That would be an attempt to introduce NEW evidence. You can't introduce new evidence at appeal. Basically you've had your day in court. Appeals and reviews are about whether you had a fair hearing and the verdicts are fair based on what evidence was provided at that hearing.

---

My understanding is it's a high court challenge not an appeal, if that is the case new evidence is entirely admissable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teecee

That would be an attempt to introduce NEW evidence. You can't introduce new evidence at appeal. Basically you've had your day in court. Appeals and reviews are about whether you had a fair hearing and the verdicts are fair based on what evidence was provided at that hearing.

---

[VVV] There's the hook Teecee. Nobody has had a day in Court.
They've had their day before the JCA. The JCA is NOT a Court although it appears the precedent obsessed boffins who apparently inhabit its halls may periodically kid themselves into thinking otherwise.
The difference lies in the respective burdens of proof required.
The JCA's and for that matter the Australian regulatory system is roughly equivalent to that of a Civil Court...ie. the balance of probabilities....whereas a Criminal Court requires much more i.e. it requires beyond reasonable doubt. Given the judgement that I've read and attempted to understand and if the NZ Court system is basically equivalent to that of our own, I think there's a very good chance Lance & Co. will get this decision thrown out.
Beers on me when next you're in Oz if I am wrong. Flashing would have a better grip on the respective burdens of proof required. Does that sound about right Tahn?

You are correct on the standards of proof. But I am the first to admit that I am not 100% sure how this will all play out in a NZ Court, I'm afraid.

It will be a bad day for Harness Racing if it goes all the way to courts. There are not to many trainers that don't use DMSO in one way or another particuly after a hard run in your horse needs to back up, I say for the sake of the sport let it go or we will spend the rest of our lives fighting swabs,protest and whatever in courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Itisi

It will be a bad day for Harness Racing if it goes all the way to courts. There are not to many trainers that don't use DMSO in one way or another particuly after a hard run in your horse needs to back up, I say for the sake of the sport let it go or we will spend the rest of our lives fighting swabs,protest and whatever in courts.

---

This discussion started after Lance Justice stated he would quit the game if found guilty, this is based on his statement that Smoken Up has never ever been treated with DMSO, so how can he let it go..........it's his right to fight. He has been branded a drug cheat and various remarks verging on slander over all of this which in my view we all quick to do without knowing all the facts. We have not been informed of all the evidence given in the case only the selected Committee references to evidence which is obviously slanted to protect their final decision. Given Smoken Up's outstanding performances over his total career as highlighted previous here I for one am prepared to believe Lance here, the horse doesn't need help to win these races, he's a freak of nature. He has performed at this level with security guards race after race and no swabbing problems. Maybe NZ stuffed up somewhere but you expect Lance to cop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p plater

This discussion started after Lance Justice stated he would quit the game if found guilty, this is based on his statement that Smoken Up has never ever been treated with DMSO, so how can he let it go..........it's his right to fight. He has been branded a drug cheat and various remarks verging on slander over all of this which in my view we all quick to do without knowing all the facts. We have not been informed of all the evidence given in the case only the selected Committee references to evidence which is obviously slanted to protect their final decision. Given Smoken Up's outstanding performances over his total career as highlighted previous here I for one am prepared to believe Lance here, the horse doesn't need help to win these races, he's a freak of nature. He has performed at this level with security guards race after race and no swabbing problems. Maybe NZ stuffed up somewhere but you expect Lance to cop it.

---

Nice work P Plater...

To Mick Tobias, if you were charged and fined and therefore deemed guilty of an offence but the clowns making that decision feel you DIDNT ACTUALLY DO IT!!! i am guessing you wouldnt be happy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maorisidol

Nice work P Plater...

To Mick Tobias, if you were charged and fined and therefore deemed guilty of an offence but the clowns making that decision feel you DIDNT ACTUALLY DO IT!!! i am guessing you wouldnt be happy!

---

What about all the innocent trainers that have been nailed with elevated TCO levels, they will tell you they never used it as well.Getting back on topic he did say he would give the game away if found guilty or is that just bull.... to.

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=93601
This was on this site back in october. So if teecee and A Bit Dusty are right this article must be wrong ? I don't know for sure but from what I have read on this site SU was disqualified in october and the penalty for the trainer was handed out last Friday. Both articles cannot be %100 correct.
Anyway back to the thread, if Lance is found guilty at the end of the legal procces (which could take years) I would expect him to stick to his word .

Further to knowing what evidence was presented at the Hearing, I think the article written by Mark Geenty a reporter who attended the hearing is interesting reading for those who have not seen it http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/...s-drug-testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Itisi

What about all the innocent trainers that have been nailed with elevated TCO levels, they will tell you they never used it as well.Getting back on topic he did say he would give the game away if found guilty or is that just bull.... to.

---

let me ask this again...

To Mick Tobias, if you were charged and fined and therefore deemed guilty of an offence but the clowns making that decision feel you DIDNT ACTUALLY DO IT!!! i am guessing you wouldnt be happy!
How would you feel Mick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gutwagon

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=93601
This was on this site back in october. So if teecee and A Bit Dusty are right this article must be wrong ? I don't know for sure but from what I have read on this site SU was disqualified in october and the penalty for the trainer was handed out last Friday. Both articles cannot be %100 correct.
Anyway back to the thread, if Lance is found guilty at the end of the legal procces (which could take years) I would expect him to stick to his word .

---

Let's clear up the confusion for you...
The article you refer to was written by a journalist who IMO struggles for factual content when looking for a scoop.
When reading articles which are at odds with the official published version make sure you have a large bag of salt handy.
Articles from STUFF treat similarly.
If you really want the true story of any story they are usually published somewhere. In this case www.jca.org.nz and www.hrnz.co.nz
To help ease your confusion below is what was said Oct 31 2011 by the hearing panel.....


7. Result:

7.1 For those reasons we are satisfied the charge brought against Mr Justice under R.1004 (2) has been proved and "Smoken Up" was connected with a breach of R.1004 (1) and (2) when it ran in and won the Pacers Grand Final at the Inter Dominion Championships on 8 April 2011, for the purposes of R.1004 (8).

7.2 We think it appropriate to make it clear the finding the charge brought against Mr Justice has been proved does not carry with it any finding he personally was responsible for "Smoken Up's" elevated DMSO level when it was presented to race in the Pacers Grand Final on the evening of 8 April 2011. In opening the Informant's case on 23 August 2011 Mr Lange expressly conceded there was no evidence Mr Justice was "complicit",as he put it, in the sense he personally, or any person with his knowledge, was responsible for the horse's elevated DMSO level and there has been no evidence put before us which suggests otherwise.

7.3 We now require submissions from Counsel as to penalty and costs which will include the costs of the Judicial Control Authority which Mr Lange will have responsibility for. To that end the following timetable is to apply:
(i) Mr Lange is to file and serve on Ms Thomas his submissions on penalty and costs within one week of the date of this Decision;
(ii) Ms Thomas will have a further week from the date of receipt of Mr Lange's submissions to file her submissions in reply;
(iii) Leave is reserved to apply if for any valid reason there is difficulty with that timetable.

DATED at Wellington this 31st day of October 2011


_________________________
Bruce Squire QC (Chairman)

_________________________
Professor Geoffrey Hall

I cant see anything there about Smoken Up being disqualified.
Can you.
I do wear specs so I may have missed it but having read it so many times I doubt it.

ou will find the determinant statement re Smoken Up's position in the race on the front page link at www.hrnz.co.nz
That statement was released 16 December 2011.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teecee

Let's clear up the confusion for you...
The article you refer to was written by a journalist who IMO struggles for factual content when looking for a scoop.
When reading articles which are at odds with the official published version make sure you have a large bag of salt handy.
Articles from STUFF treat similarly.
If you really want the true story of any story they are usually published somewhere. In this case www.jca.org.nz and www.hrnz.co.nz
To help ease your confusion below is what was said Oct 31 2011 by the hearing panel.....


7. Result:

7.1 For those reasons we are satisfied the charge brought against Mr Justice under R.1004 (2) has been proved and "Smoken Up" was connected with a breach of R.1004 (1) and (2) when it ran in and won the Pacers Grand Final at the Inter Dominion Championships on 8 April 2011, for the purposes of R.1004 (8).

7.2 We think it appropriate to make it clear the finding the charge brought against Mr Justice has been proved does not carry with it any finding he personally was responsible for "Smoken Up's" elevated DMSO level when it was presented to race in the Pacers Grand Final on the evening of 8 April 2011. In opening the Informant's case on 23 August 2011 Mr Lange expressly conceded there was no evidence Mr Justice was "complicit",as he put it, in the sense he personally, or any person with his knowledge, was responsible for the horse's elevated DMSO level and there has been no evidence put before us which suggests otherwise.

7.3 We now require submissions from Counsel as to penalty and costs which will include the costs of the Judicial Control Authority which Mr Lange will have responsibility for. To that end the following timetable is to apply:
(i) Mr Lange is to file and serve on Ms Thomas his submissions on penalty and costs within one week of the date of this Decision;
(ii) Ms Thomas will have a further week from the date of receipt of Mr Lange's submissions to file her submissions in reply;
(iii) Leave is reserved to apply if for any valid reason there is difficulty with that timetable.

DATED at Wellington this 31st day of October 2011


_________________________
Bruce Squire QC (Chairman)

_________________________
Professor Geoffrey Hall

I cant see anything there about Smoken Up being disqualified.
Can you.
I do wear specs so I may have missed it but having read it so many times I doubt it.

ou will find the determinant statement re Smoken Up's position in the race on the front page link at www.hrnz.co.nz
That statement was released 16 December 2011.

---

He may not have been officially disqualified but everybody knew the race was being taken off him as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

[VVV] There's the hook Teecee. Nobody has had a day in Court.
They've had their day before the JCA. The JCA is NOT a Court although it appears the precedent obsessed boffins who apparently inhabit its halls may periodically kid themselves into thinking otherwise.
The difference lies in the respective burdens of proof required.
The JCA's and for that matter the Australian regulatory system is roughly equivalent to that of a Civil Court...ie. the balance of probabilities....whereas a Criminal Court requires much more i.e. it requires beyond reasonable doubt. Given the judgement that I've read and attempted to understand and if the NZ Court system is basically equivalent to that of our own, I think there's a very good chance Lance & Co. will get this decision thrown out.
Beers on me when next you're in Oz if I am wrong. Flashing would have a better grip on the respective burdens of proof required. Does that sound about right Tahn?

---

Sorry Jaimie.. The day in court remark was not meant to be a literal description.
The JCA is not a court, true but it is a properly constituted tribunal to hear issues concerning the integrity of racing in NZ as is the Sports arbitration tribunals.
I'm not sure you are being entirely fair to the JCA or for that matter it's members and especially the two people on this panel.
As this case was such a high profile case the chair of the JCA 9 a very approachable lady) selected her two most senior and experienced panellists to hear the case.
The JCA have created resources to assist Licence holders perform to their best before judicial panels and have been very helpful to many in this aspect.
Indeed I believe that Lance could have done much worse than select either or both of these gentlemen to represent him if they were not otherwise engaged.
They deal with the ins and outs of NZ racing rules more than most. This is no indictment at all on MJT. She is extremely able. I know her. Her Family and mine are quite close friends.
The JCA and the counsel in this case are only dealing with a rule created by others.
these "others" are the real boffins IMO as you so elegantly put it are those who have taken the Harness Racing industry in the country from the highs of a $1.2 million NZ Cup 3 years ago to virtually bankruptcy or an industry of paupers at best.

Anyway I look forward to sharing a beer with you at anytime on either side of the ditch.

Tony,

"these "others" are the real boffins IMO as you so elegantly put it are those who have taken the Harness Racing industry in the country from the highs of a $1.2 million NZ Cup 3 years ago to virtually bankruptcy or an industry of paupers at best."

So who are the "others"?

Is it possible to change any of these "you didnt do it, but you are guilty" rules?

To me it is simply not common sense...

lets say a strapper has a grief with his trainer boss and secretly slaps some DMSO on a horse, the trainer is innocent, its a nasty setup, its proven to be a setup as in the strapper confesses BUT the rules states...trainer guilty cos he "presented the horse"!

Stupid "others"!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maorisidol

Tony,

"these "others" are the real boffins IMO as you so elegantly put it are those who have taken the Harness Racing industry in the country from the highs of a $1.2 million NZ Cup 3 years ago to virtually bankruptcy or an industry of paupers at best."

So who are the "others"?

Is it possible to change any of these "you didnt do it, but you are guilty" rules?

To me it is simply not common sense...

lets say a strapper has a grief with his trainer boss and secretly slaps some DMSO on a horse, the trainer is innocent, its a nasty setup, its proven to be a setup as in the strapper confesses BUT the rules states...trainer guilty cos he "presented the horse"!

Stupid "others"!!!

---

Civil and criminal law would then apply.

[QUOTE=Maorisidol;14377]Tony,

"these "others" are the real boffins IMO as you so elegantly put it are those who have taken the Harness Racing industry in the country from the highs of a $1.2 million NZ Cup 3 years ago to virtually bankruptcy or an industry of paupers at best."

So who are the "others"?
The others are the lawmakers. The legal eagles employed by HZ to write the rules.
The Board of HRNZ who sanction these rules and the delegates from each club and kindred body who go to the Annual conference and vote for these rules.
Kindred bodies include trainers and drivers assn, breeders assn and owners assn.
Yes that's right even the Harness Racing Trainers and Drivers Assn are party to this.

Is it possible to change any of these "you didnt do it, but you are guilty" rules?

Rules are made at Conference or by the Board of HRNZ.
Lobbying the Board, changing the Board (Easier option!!!!!).
You can guess when these rules are made by the industry itself. The JCA is totally independent to interpret and use what the industry give it to judge a case.

To me it is simply not common sense...

lets say a strapper has a grief with his trainer boss and secretly slaps some DMSO on a horse, the trainer is innocent, its a nasty setup, its proven to be a setup as in the strapper confesses BUT the rules states...trainer guilty cos he "presented the horse"!

Well Taking out the grief part,I guess this is why Mark Purdon closed his Auckland Satellite stable and canned his Aussie operations after the "Fly Like an Eagle" case.
You can't be everywhere at once with an eye on all........

Great last point TC,
A Trainer can't see every horse all day every day especially if a trainer is a trainer/driver (Lance) too...
How logically can that person watch what is happening with his horse while getting changed etc!!!
Illogical thinking in my opinion, get the culprit of an offence don't just pass the buck, that's weak I reckon.
So if a rugby/footy player king hits another player, under these rules the Captain or Coach who didn't do it, and the tribunal agrees there is no evidence to prove the Captain or Coach did do it, that person gets charged fined reprimanded suspended not the hitter!
Illogical
Not common sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maorisidol

Great last point TC,
A Trainer can't see every horse all day every day especially if a trainer is a trainer/driver (Lance) too...
How logically can that person watch what is happening with his horse while getting changed etc!!!
Illogical thinking in my opinion, get the culprit of an offence don't just pass the buck, that's weak I reckon.
So if a rugby/footy player king hits another player, under these rules the Captain or Coach who didn't do it, and the tribunal agrees there is no evidence to prove the Captain or Coach did do it, that person gets charged fined reprimanded suspended not the hitter!
Illogical
Not common sense

---

Analogy does not make sense. They are humans. A coach getting fined because of one of is players would be a trainer getting fined because of the driver doing something wrong. And surprise surprise if the horse wins who most trainers pay the drivers fine anyway!

The horse had DMSO in its system(9.3mg/l on 1 April and the higher reading 8 April). Who did it? Maybe it was Tinkerbell waving her magic wand around and spreading fairy dust in the guise of DMSO. Lance has stated he never uses the stuff - hates it. So an explanation is required regarding the April 1 reading even if it is in the legal range. Very incriminating in my mind.

lets say a strapper has a grief with his trainer boss and secretly slaps some DMSO on a horse, the trainer is innocent, its a nasty setup, its proven to be a setup as in the strapper confesses BUT the rules states...trainer guilty cos he "presented the horse"!

Just a little extra on this subject and how inconsistent this law is . Denis Wilson was in Queensland with Attitagain when one of his horses in sydney goes positive because of a stable employee giving the wrong horse medication , Wilson get's suspended . D. Thomas goes positive for bute his mother say's she gave the wrong horse the bute ,mother gets fined D. Thomas no suspension.
Gai Waterhouse horse goes positive to coke , stable hand says he does coke must have touched horse Gai fined no suspension , D Smith goes positive for bute his father say's he gave wrong horse the bute D Smith suspended. WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF WE HAD SOME FORM OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING FINDINGS AND PENALTIES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Atom

The horse had DMSO in its system(9.3mg/l on 1 April and the higher reading 8 April). Who did it? Maybe it was Tinkerbell waving her magic wand around and spreading fairy dust in the guise of DMSO. Lance has stated he never uses the stuff - hates it. So an explanation is required regarding the April 1 reading even if it is in the legal range. Very incriminating in my mind.

---

Hi Rod Good question and I hope I can shed some light on it for you .The reason there is a threshold for D.M.S.O is because it is a by product from trees, therefore
it is a naturally occuring product ,ie a horse chews on a bit of bark while in the paddock or chews the railing of his yard can give a reading. So you can put your tinkerbell theory to rest. Hear is some very interesting reading http://cancertutor.com/Cancer/DMSO.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A BIT DUSTY

lets say a strapper has a grief with his trainer boss and secretly slaps some DMSO on a horse, the trainer is innocent, its a nasty setup, its proven to be a setup as in the strapper confesses BUT the rules states...trainer guilty cos he "presented the horse"!

Just a little extra on this subject and how inconsistent this law is . Denis Wilson was in Queensland with Attitagain when one of his horses in sydney goes positive because of a stable employee giving the wrong horse medication A stable employees paid to do stuff by Wilson, Wilson get's suspended . D. Thomas goes positive for bute his mother Not an employee of the trainer say's she gave the wrong horse the bute ,mother gets fined D. Thomas no suspension.
Gai Waterhouse Different code horse goes positive to coke , stable hand says he does coke must have touched horse Gai fined no suspension Not scientifically proven it could be transferred , D Smith goes positive for bute his father say's he gave wrong horse the bute D Smith suspended D Smith never heard the name, galloping trainer? If so different code. WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF WE HAD SOME FORM OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING PENALTIES.

---

Also, there is more than one reason behind a decision. No two circumstances are the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Analogy does not make sense. They are humans. A coach getting fined because of one of is players would be a trainer getting fined because of the driver doing something wrong. And surprise surprise if the horse wins who most trainers pay the drivers fine anyway!

---

Breno, my meaning being if any person gets "fined accused convicted" of anything, but ANY other person, fellow teammate, strapper, person of general public Actually commits the crime, my point is, it's dumb that the Trainer/Coach/whoever, cops the crap!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Also, there is more than one reason behind a decision. No two circumstances are the same.

---

BRENDAN HAVE YOU LOST THE F----- PLOT D.Wilson was 900 klms away D thomas's mother was living on the same property working with the horses , the fact that one was a paid employee and the other was not has got F all to do with a trainer presenting a horse to race free of a prohibited substance , it is total responsibility of the trainer that is why I was bemoaning the lack of consistency. D. Smith happens to train one of Australia's best galloping sprinters Atomic Force I'm sorry for not making this clearer, I took it for granted that most people with any currant sporting knowledge would have known this. Obviously the reference was a comparison to Gai Waterhouse getting off.

Your comments re: A stable employees paid to do stuff by Wilson, Wilson get's suspended . D. Thomas goes positive for bute his mother Not an employee of the trainer .

Using your logic Brendan HOW do you Explain the Waterhouse ( paid employee) get's off. D Smith ( non payed father ) get's suspended. Please don't give me the different codes thing because we are under the same legal system in Australia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Atom

The horse had DMSO in its system(9.3mg/l on 1 April and the higher reading 8 April). Who did it? Maybe it was Tinkerbell waving her magic wand around and spreading fairy dust in the guise of DMSO. Lance has stated he never uses the stuff - hates it. So an explanation is required regarding the April 1 reading even if it is in the legal range. Very incriminating in my mind.

---

Just so you understand MA. DMSO is in our food chain, it is natures way of us getting our required sulphur. How much have you consumed today from the following list. It is also interesting that lucerne has the highest level of DMSO that is why a level of 15 has been set to allow for daily consumption in racing horses. The list includes; Alfalfa,Asparagus,Barley,Beans,Beets,Cabbage,Corn, Cucumbers,Oats,Onions,Swiss Chard,Tomatoes,Apples,Raspberries,Spearmint,Beer,C offee,Tea and Lucerne.
Did you enjoy your DMSO today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Also, there is more than one reason behind a decision. No two circumstances are the same.

---

Not scientifically proven it could be transferred ,*


Waterhouse, a 2007 Hall of Fame nominee, has had an exemplary record since taking out her trainer's licence in 1992. Her only previous drugs-related issue was the Love You Honey cocaine affair where the trainer was fined $15,000 by stewards but had that penalty over-turned on appeal after it was established the positive swab was more likely a result of contamination from a stablehand


Just to enlighten you a little more Brendan in a court of law you don't have to have SCIENTIFIC PROOF to have reasonable doubt. KEEP READING MY POST YOUR LEARNING EVERY DAY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A BIT DUSTY

Hi Rod Good question and I hope I can shed some light on it for you .The reason there is a threshold for D.M.S.O is because it is a by product from trees, therefore
it is a naturally occuring product ,ie a horse chews on a bit of bark while in the paddock or chews the railing of his yard can give a reading. So you can put your tinkerbell theory to rest. Hear is some very interesting reading http://cancertutor.com/Cancer/DMSO.htm

---

Thanks Denny for the info and reading material,very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Atom

Thanks Denny for the info and reading material,very interesting.

---

Hi Rod I only stumbled on that site looking for some info on D.M.S.O , but it blew me away with some of the claims in it ,I'm certainly going to do a bit more research into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maorisidol

Breno, my meaning being if any person gets "fined accused convicted" of anything, but ANY other person, fellow teammate, strapper, person of general public Actually commits the crime, my point is, it's dumb that the Trainer/Coach/whoever, cops the crap!

---

Yeah I get your point but its a bad analogy because in 99% of cases humans can control our actions but horses can't control a drug getting into their system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A BIT DUSTY

BRENDAN HAVE YOU LOST THE F----- PLOT D.Wilson was 900 klms away D thomas's mother was living on the same property working with the horses , the fact that one was a paid employee and the other was not has got F all to do with a trainer presenting a horse to race free of a prohibited substance , it is total responsibility of the trainer that is why I was bemoaning the lack of consistency. D. Smith happens to train one of Australia's best galloping sprinters Atomic Force I'm sorry for not making this clearer, I took it for granted that most people with any currant sporting knowledge would have known this. Obviously the reference was a comparison to Gai Waterhouse getting off.

Your comments re: A stable employees paid to do stuff by Wilson, Wilson get's suspended . D. Thomas goes positive for bute his mother Not an employee of the trainer .

Using your logic Brendan HOW do you Explain the Waterhouse ( paid employee) get's off. D Smith ( non payed father ) get's suspended. Please don't give me the different codes thing because we are under the same legal system in Australia.

---

Without knowing the cases in specific law isn't a science experiment where you have a dependent variable and an independent variable. In law cases there are many variables you can't just take one similarity between the case and say the rulings weren't consistent.

The different codes do have different rules btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Without knowing the cases in specific law isn't a science experiment where you have a dependent variable and an independent variable. In law cases there are many variables you can't just take one similarity between the case and say the rulings weren't consistent.

The different codes do have different rules btw.

---

Brendan wipe the sleep out your eye mate and read what I wrote, I said both codes are under the same legal system . Which means after the respective hearings of either code you can challenge the findings in the SAME COURT SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA.