Printable View
Everyone keeps coming up with the same names to get a visit but the whistleblower doesnt get a visit....just a smack on the wrist at the conclusion
The big fish the police are after arent trainers or drivers. One is a former owner currrently on the HRA NSW suspension list and the other is a well known big fat punter.If i were them id be visiting the Skase family in Spain till the heat dies down a little
Greg, he is of the opinion that with out any evidence relating to the swabs nothing will stick, im not on his side i hope all the time in harness racing is over but thats what he is telling me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Hando
I don't think they have been charged with doping , so the no swab defence would be not worth a pinch of sh-t . From what I have read they have been charged with making payments to induce corruption , If there is proof ( and it sure sounds as if there is ) that money has been paid for advanced knowledge, what they did after that is irrelevant.
Hi fellow posters...... I have been following the trots scandal for a while now but found it hard to sort out the facts from fiction! How many races were actually involved in the scandal and how many trainers/drivers are going to be charged? Also how could such corruption be allowed to exist without the bosses at harness racing keeping check on their staff??
This was posted earlier but it puts it into perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmoore
The reason Paul O'Toole had to know was that as starter he is the one to clear horses to pre race warm up, if a horse is to pre race blood tested it can not warm up first as it renders the swab useless.
Looking at the meetings already listed I think you will find they were meetings where one of the two stewards either Bentley or O'Toole were in charge.
The only way would have been to not have them make the decisions on which horses to swab, if HRNSW knew enough to do that well they would not have been working at all.
As soon as HRNSW had any thing like proof the acted put the allegations to the accused and they resigned.
I have done some ruff calculations to show why it was not that easy to identify any pattern of horses not swabbed from raw data.
As I understand it the swab selection process in NSW at the time allowed the chief steward at the meeting to select 3 winners from 8 races to be post race tested (not considering HP or now Menangle where each winner is swabbed) this leaves approximately 50 winners a week untested in NSW, at 4.5 weeks a month, on average this is 225 winners a month not swabbed.
I do not think in those circumstances missing one post race a month would be hard to hide from your superiors.
Now lets examine TCO2 testing say an average of 70 runners per meeting (again discount HP or Menangle where more are tested up to 25% of the runners) TCO2 testing was conducted at about 70% of meetings at about 6 runners a meeting so it is then only 36 runners a week tested from 700 runners if you do the maths that is 3150 runners a month again not difficult to hide the missing of one, two or even three bloods a month in these circumstances.
I am not sure how anyone could identify a pattern emerging , there are just too many variables.
I am told it was part of the plan to also to test other stable runners who were not "helped" so again no pattern emerged because it looked like the Trainer was being tested all the time.
At most meetings in NSW there are only two stewards one has to make the decisions which horses to swab weather it be pre or post race.
We should also remember there have been in NSW over the past few years a number of Trainers disqualified for TCO2 positives after post race two hour blood tests were ordered by vigilant stewards who smelt a rat on the night or day as it may be, ironically one of the Trainers to be disqualified in those circumstances has already been charged in this investigation.
Its needle in haystack stuff without the whistle blower that led to the phone use and money trail.
That explains a lot. What about the whistleblower? Is he an innocent party or one of those to be arrested??
Sorry I am not close enough to offer an opinion with any validity and I hate guessing, glad it cleared up how it could have happened tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmoore
Bill, you seem to have an opinion or defence for the people you work for or did work for on everything said in this forum, maybe you could offer some advice on improving the current swabbing procedures
I think that is an easy question to answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macarthur
There is no doubt in my opinion that the best model is the current model operated by RacingNSW where every winner is swabbed, in Harness this could be confined to meetings covered by the TAB. In this instance I am talking post race swabbing only.
In relation to TCO2 testing which is a bigger issue for harness than the gallops, the current 25% of runners that are done at the Metro standard meetings could be rolled out to all provincial standard meetings.
I am aware this would constitute a considerable extension to the current cost structure.
The best alternative would seem to be one outlined in other forum posts by VVV where another machine be purchased and used to check TCO2 levels in bloods, it is clear this machine is not supported under the rules to declare a positive test, however it could be used to highlight high TCO2 findings that then require further testing with the approved equipment.The deterrent effect of this would be immeasurable because at many meetings every runner could be tested.
This approach would also clearly lessen the cost burden.
Whilst ever the situation exists that every winner is not post race tested and such a small percentage of runners are TCO2 tested it is too easy for cheats to sneak through, this is not in any way meant to suggest HRNSW should have done a better job. they have a limited budget and swabbing is an expensive exercise but if public confidence is to be returned and maintained then a very different approach needs to be taken and as stupid as it sounds regardless of the costs.
If Harness Racing loses public confidence long term, then turnover drops, which in turn leads to lesser payments from the TABCORP agreement which will lead to a drop in prize money and a shrinking industry.
I am positive I know the answer, but I am not sure how to fund it, it would be great if we lived in Utopia but we do not, we live in NSW.
Bill you know more about this topic than hrnsw and the stewards by the sounds of it! Did you ever consider becoming a steward and what is your background in the sport??