Concurrent OR Cumulative

Below is a partial transcript of a hearing of a breach of the prohibited substance rules.
The defendant pleads GUILTY
From what I have read here and in other related threads the defendant is a CHEAT.
Facts are facts we are told.
But are they? Can it be that not all people convicted under the drugs rules are in fact CHEATS?
IMO, some definitely are, some possibly are, some probably not, others definitely not.
IMO the rules are not catching the definitely ares. You and the general public are only hearing of the others.

Rules:

4004(1), (2) and (4)

Information Number:

63982 Informant

Mr NNNN - Racecourse Inspector

Repondent(s)/Other parties:

Mr AAAA

Decision:

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN HARNESS RACING NEW ZEALAND
Informant
AND MR HHHH, Public Trainer
Defendant

Information: No. 63982
Judicial Committee: Prof (Chairman), (Member)
Appearing: Mr NNNN, Racecourse Inspector (for the informant)
Defendant: in person
Venue: RRRR Racecourse
Date of Hearing:
Date of Decision:
__________________________________________________ ___________________
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
__________________________________________________ ___________________
[1] Mr HHHH appears before this Judicial Committee on a charge of presenting a horse to race with a prohibited substance in its system in breach of Rule 1004(1), (2) and (4).
[2] These Rules, which are preceded by the heading “Prohibited Substance Rules”, read relevantly:
(1) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.
(2) Where a horse is taken, or is to be taken, to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race otherwise than in accordance with sub-rule (1) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules.
(4) A breach of these rules under sub-rule (2) … is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse.
[3] The penalties for a breach of these rules are set out in Rule 1004 which provides in subss (7) and (8):
(7) Every person who commits a breach of sub-rule (2) … shall be liable to:
(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000 and /or
(b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years.
(8) Any horse connected with a breach of sub-rule (1) [or] (2) shall be disqualified from any race entered and/or liable to a period of disqualification not exceeding five years.
Mr HHHH has admitted the breach. We thus find the charge proved.
Penalty:

Decision as to penalty
[25] We fine Mr HHHH the sum of $450.
[26] In addition, we order pursuant to Rule 1004(8) that F***** L***** be disqualified from Race 10 at the T****** Harness Racing Club’s meeting on.
We further order that the placings be amended and that the stakes money be paid out accordingly.
[27] The matter has been heard on a raceday. There is no order for costs.

Okay Mr HHHH has admitted breaching the drugs rules. To many here is just another drugs cheat. He should be banned for life. He is the reason Harness racing is on its last legs.
OR IS there another reason.

Having read this post I have left a link to the full hearing and the full circumstances of his case.
You decide if he and EVERY Other person charged under the prohibited substance laws in either NZ or Australia is really infact a CHEAT.

A Cheat or not...the full story

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-h.../?searchterm=A Hunter*

PS..
The drug at the centre of this case has subsequently been removed from the list of prohibited substances!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

Trish we are undoubtedly in challenging times but as Tony points out - we have always had cheats. We have lived with the nickname the Red Hots for decades. Whether we come out stronger or weaker I am unsure but I liken it to the sharemarket where for every expert predicting boom there is an expert predicting bust

Hi Kev .That is correct but not like it is now . The share market at least has good days . We predict doom if nothing is done and the figures support this . We're not saying that it is beyond help , but we see the grass roots people walking away . We see people dogging their mares , gear being sold off , tracks overgrowing , owners getting out . We hear the absolute disgust and hate that people have for the industry every time you talk to them . Once they're gone that's it .

Having read this post I have left a link to the full hearing and the full circumstances of his case.
You decide if he and EVERY Other person charged under the prohibited substance laws in either NZ or Australia is really infact a CHEAT.

I never said all positive swabs were cheats , but even if you allowed for a couple of accidents in the feed barn its still over 60 in NSW and there can't be that many accidents

I think it is very clear even to the uninitiated that there is a clear and equivocal link by inference between people charged with breaches of the prohibited substance rules and the label of a Cheat on this forum.
Trish this is not directly related to you or your views. It is for all to consider what has been widesweeping generalised posts across the forum about Cheats and cheating.
While there may well be as you say 60 cases in NSW, I see nothing within those 60 cases to say how many are actually cheating or some other circumstance. a guilty plea is often the easiest way out when you cant prove or don't have the resources to prove circumstances. How many of these 60 show no consideration of the rules and are deserving of the heaviest sanctions applicable. How many actually are small time or hard working trainers who have the same sentiments as yourself and others on here who yearn for a level playing field,(whatever that means) but have been caught out by giving their horse too much of a prepared formula raising for example their TCO2 level.

There may be 60 positives in NSW and I agree there is most unlikely 60 or possibly even 30 (for the sake of numbers) accidents.
What is more likely is that neither you nor I anyone else contributing to this debate from either angle know how many are cheats and how many are not.
What is clear is that the majority of people contributing to this debate are of the view that the majority of people caught up in drugs charges are cheats and that is without any basis in fact. I say there is no basis in fact because the authorities have no need to prove an act of cheating even to get a conviction under the rules.
If they don't need the evidence and thus don't produce it, I ask where our contributors get their evidence of cheating from?

With respect the "Officer Barbrady" approach isn't going to fix the problem or the perception, if the Lance Armstrong case taught you nothing else other than you don't need a positive test to be a drug cheat then nothing will. Like many posters the industry needs to go cap in hand to the police and government authorities and ask for assistance in terms of prosecuting offenders on both levels. Too many good people are walking away because of the unfair playing field.

Apart from the waste of resources that policing drugs necessitates it is the breeding angle that irks me the most - how can one know if apparent good family connections are kosher or corrupt?

Of course most sympathy has to go to honest toilers who suspect they are trailing in modified horses

I think those policing the sport have to be happy to be seen as the enemy - have it be known that we suspect everyone "so do not take offence"
We need more than retention barns before big races. We need a couple of roving stewards that attach themselves to whatever stable they wish for as long as they wish and who attach stable cameras for when they leave for the day

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

I think it is very clear even to the uninitiated that there is a clear and equivocal link by inference between people charged with breaches of the prohibited substance rules and the label of a Cheat on this forum.
Trish this is not directly related to you or your views. It is for all to consider what has been widesweeping generalised posts across the forum about Cheats and cheating.
While there may well be as you say 60 cases in NSW, I see nothing within those 60 cases to say how many are actually cheating or some other circumstance. a guilty plea is often the easiest way out when you cant prove or don't have the resources to prove circumstances. How many of these 60 show no consideration of the rules and are deserving of the heaviest sanctions applicable. How many actually are small time or hard working trainers who have the same sentiments as yourself and others on here who yearn for a level playing field,(whatever that means) but have been caught out by giving their horse too much of a prepared formula raising for example their TCO2 level.

There may be 60 positives in NSW and I agree there is most unlikely 60 or possibly even 30 (for the sake of numbers) accidents.
What is more likely is that neither you nor I anyone else contributing to this debate from either angle know how many are cheats and how many are not.
What is clear is that the majority of people contributing to this debate are of the view that the majority of people caught up in drugs charges are cheats and that is without any basis in fact. I say there is no basis in fact because the authorities have no need to prove an act of cheating even to get a conviction under the rules.
If they don't need the evidence and thus don't produce it, I ask where our contributors get their evidence of cheating from?

Hi Tony . Years ago everyone gave their horses some bute after they raced to help them recover and eat . That would get them a positive today and no they are not cheats . A lot of trainers threw a handful of bi carb on their horses feed and still do but I don't consider them cheats . Most trainers give their horses something on race day whether it be vitamins or supplements. According to the rules they are breaking these rules but , still , I don't consider them cheats . We ALL know who the cheats are , even you . If it could be proved we wouldn't have these posts . Most of those 60 were just trying to keep up with the real cheats . A few nasties amongst them but generally these guys are desperate . Maybe it's just not so bad where you are

And who knows what other drugs biochemists are creating that aren't traceable ATM... It never will end, not as long as there are human beings...

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Great thinking Ron, I wonder weather it would be possible to come up with a maximum level for a red blood cell count, like they have with bi-card & cobalt.

Hi,Trish,this is apparently a major part of what is to be done.I can hear the reason for not doing it,"it will cost money!"as if the current situation is not.

good post Trish...spot on

Trish,if you are interested,
An athlete biological passport is an individual, electronic record for professional athletes, in which profiles of biological markers of doping and results of doping tests are collated over a period of time. Doping violations can be detected by noting variances from an athlete’s established levels outside permissible limits, rather than testing for and identifying illegal substances.[1]
Although the terminology athlete passport is recent, the use of biological markers of doping has a long history in anti-doping. Maybe the first marker of doping, that tries to detect a prohibited substance not based on its presence in urine or blood, but through the induced deviations in biological parameters, is the so-called testosterone over epitestosterone ratio (T/E). The T/E has been used by sports authorities since the beginning of the 1980s to detect anabolic steroids in urine samples. A decade later, in 1997, markers of blood doping were introduced by some international federations, such as the Union Cycliste Internationale and the Federation Internationale de Ski, to deter the abuse of recombinant erythropoietin that was undetectable by direct means at that time. It is only in 2002 that the paradigm to use biological markers of doping took the terminology athlete passport. The merits of this testing paradigm were exposed in the scientific literature [2] and the terminology adopted by the World Anti-Doping agency.[3]
Many believe[who?] that the athlete passport provides an excellent alternative to ensure fairness in elite sports. While a new drug test must be developed and validated for each new drug, the main advantage of the athlete passport is that it is based on the stability of the physiology of the human being. New drugs are produced at an unprecedented pace today and there is often a lag of several years between the availability of a new drug and the application of an effective detection method. On the contrary, the physiology of the human being remains the same through several generations and all biomarkers developed today in the athlete passport will remain valid for at least several decades. For example, the blood module of the passport is already sensitive today to any new future form of recombinant erythropoietin, as well as to any form of gene doping that will enhance oxygen transfer to the muscles. Also, while a negative drug test does not necessarily mean that the athlete did not dope, the athlete can present his/her passport at the beginning of a competition to attest that he/she will compete in his/her natural, unaltered condition.
The athlete passport has received a lot of attention when its blood module was established at the beginning of the 2008 racing season by the Union Cycliste Internationale.[4] In May 2008 the UCI revealed that 23 riders were under suspicion of doping following the first phase of blood tests conducted under the new biological passport.[5] The blood module of the athlete passport aims to detect any form of blood doping, the steroid module any form of doping with anabolic steroid and the endocrine module any modification of the growth hormone/IGF-1 axis. Each of these modules are however at different steps of development, validation and application in sports.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2minuteman

Trish,if you are interested,
An athlete biological passport is an individual, electronic record for professional athletes, in which profiles of biological markers of doping and results of doping tests are collated over a period of time. Doping violations can be detected by noting variances from an athlete’s established levels outside permissible limits, rather than testing for and identifying illegal substances.[1]
Although the terminology athlete passport is recent, the use of biological markers of doping has a long history in anti-doping. Maybe the first marker of doping, that tries to detect a prohibited substance not based on its presence in urine or blood, but through the induced deviations in biological parameters, is the so-called testosterone over epitestosterone ratio (T/E). The T/E has been used by sports authorities since the beginning of the 1980s to detect anabolic steroids in urine samples. A decade later, in 1997, markers of blood doping were introduced by some international federations, such as the Union Cycliste Internationale and the Federation Internationale de Ski, to deter the abuse of recombinant erythropoietin that was undetectable by direct means at that time. It is only in 2002 that the paradigm to use biological markers of doping took the terminology athlete passport. The merits of this testing paradigm were exposed in the scientific literature [2] and the terminology adopted by the World Anti-Doping agency.[3]
Many believe[who?] that the athlete passport provides an excellent alternative to ensure fairness in elite sports. While a new drug test must be developed and validated for each new drug, the main advantage of the athlete passport is that it is based on the stability of the physiology of the human being. New drugs are produced at an unprecedented pace today and there is often a lag of several years between the availability of a new drug and the application of an effective detection method. On the contrary, the physiology of the human being remains the same through several generations and all biomarkers developed today in the athlete passport will remain valid for at least several decades. For example, the blood module of the passport is already sensitive today to any new future form of recombinant erythropoietin, as well as to any form of gene doping that will enhance oxygen transfer to the muscles. Also, while a negative drug test does not necessarily mean that the athlete did not dope, the athlete can present his/her passport at the beginning of a competition to attest that he/she will compete in his/her natural, unaltered condition.
The athlete passport has received a lot of attention when its blood module was established at the beginning of the 2008 racing season by the Union Cycliste Internationale.[4] In May 2008 the UCI revealed that 23 riders were under suspicion of doping following the first phase of blood tests conducted under the new biological passport.[5] The blood module of the athlete passport aims to detect any form of blood doping, the steroid module any form of doping with anabolic steroid and the endocrine module any modification of the growth hormone/IGF-1 axis. Each of these modules are however at different steps of development, validation and application in sports.

This is exactly what is needed Ron, lets hope it comes to fruition.

I posted this on another thread but putting it here as well.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/...hange-scrapped

"Sanders said 4710 TCO2 tests had been done in the last 12 months and HRNSW had records of almost every horse racing in the state."

If they have this, cobalt & a RBC passport for every horse then maybe we will get somewhere regarding a level playing field.

I just re read this article from NZ & it states this

Since HRNZ revealed it wanted to raise the TCO2 threshold level but seek mandatory two-year disqualifications for first offenders, five year bans for second offenders and 10 year bans for those with three strikes, there had been widespread comdemnation from trainers

I find it hard to fathom why trainers, if they were running clean, wouldn't applaud this move instead of oppose it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

I just re read this article from NZ & it states this

Since HRNZ revealed it wanted to raise the TCO2 threshold level but seek mandatory two-year disqualifications for first offenders, five year bans for second offenders and 10 year bans for those with three strikes, there had been widespread comdemnation from trainers

I find it hard to fathom why trainers, if they were running clean, wouldn't applaud this move instead of oppose it.

A remit to this effect was to be put before the annual conference of clubs this past weekend. Trainers and drivers have only one voice at conference.
The remit was withdrawn by the sponsor HRNZ. Clearly more than trainers didn't like the scenario when upon analysis of the proposal...
a.. It is the responsibility of the JCA to determine penalties for rule breaches in NZ.
They are empowered for this within the Racing Act and the NZ Bill of Rights. A standard blanket penalty gives neither RIU nor JCA any movement on penalty considerations on a case by case basis.
b.. To impose a standard penalty as suggested and for such to withstand any scrutiny requires a greater standard of proof than is currently applied.

The makeup of the rule is being reconsidered by those interested parties.

Thanks TeeCee very informative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2minuteman

Trish,if you are interested,
An athlete biological passport is an individual, electronic record for professional athletes, in which profiles of biological markers of doping and results of doping tests are collated over a period of time. Doping violations can be detected by noting variances from an athlete’s established levels outside permissible limits, rather than testing for and identifying illegal substances.[1]
Although the terminology athlete passport is recent, the use of biological markers of doping has a long history in anti-doping. Maybe the first marker of doping, that tries to detect a prohibited substance not based on its presence in urine or blood, but through the induced deviations in biological parameters, is the so-called testosterone over epitestosterone ratio (T/E). The T/E has been used by sports authorities since the beginning of the 1980s to detect anabolic steroids in urine samples. A decade later, in 1997, markers of blood doping were introduced by some international federations, such as the Union Cycliste Internationale and the Federation Internationale de Ski, to deter the abuse of recombinant erythropoietin that was undetectable by direct means at that time. It is only in 2002 that the paradigm to use biological markers of doping took the terminology athlete passport. The merits of this testing paradigm were exposed in the scientific literature [2] and the terminology adopted by the World Anti-Doping agency.[3]
Many believe[who?] that the athlete passport provides an excellent alternative to ensure fairness in elite sports. While a new drug test must be developed and validated for each new drug, the main advantage of the athlete passport is that it is based on the stability of the physiology of the human being. New drugs are produced at an unprecedented pace today and there is often a lag of several years between the availability of a new drug and the application of an effective detection method. On the contrary, the physiology of the human being remains the same through several generations and all biomarkers developed today in the athlete passport will remain valid for at least several decades. For example, the blood module of the passport is already sensitive today to any new future form of recombinant erythropoietin, as well as to any form of gene doping that will enhance oxygen transfer to the muscles. Also, while a negative drug test does not necessarily mean that the athlete did not dope, the athlete can present his/her passport at the beginning of a competition to attest that he/she will compete in his/her natural, unaltered condition.
The athlete passport has received a lot of attention when its blood module was established at the beginning of the 2008 racing season by the Union Cycliste Internationale.[4] In May 2008 the UCI revealed that 23 riders were under suspicion of doping following the first phase of blood tests conducted under the new biological passport.[5] The blood module of the athlete passport aims to detect any form of blood doping, the steroid module any form of doping with anabolic steroid and the endocrine module any modification of the growth hormone/IGF-1 axis. Each of these modules are however at different steps of development, validation and application in sports.

Hi Ron, A tiny two sentences in The Gazette August issue page 32 (UHRA NEWS with Wally Mann), says "HRNSW also advised that blood profiling of horses is in process".

http://www.hrnz.co.nz/images/Notice_...or_Website.pdf

Teecee, Am I reading this right, that by going from 35 to 36 mmol of TCO2, i.e. an increase of 1 mmol, that the degree of making a false positive error will reduce from 1 in 15,793 chances to 1 in 2,021,729! I'm no statistician, but that is a massive reduction in the error rate?? That is a 128 times improvement for less errors.......Just imagine if they went to 40..........no one could ever challenge their being an error!
I note that they are also not inclined to go to cumulative penalties!

Figures are renowned as the most manipulative commodity the human race ever invented.
As stated the penalty regime is still under review.
I can only remember one case of multi charges since TCO2 became an issue. In that case the JCA did impose a cumulative disq sentence later reduced on appeal to lesser cumulative time plus a fine.

Looking at the concept of Cumulative and Concurrent......
Specifically charges 4,5,6

http://www.harness.org.au/news/uploa...2010122014.pdf