Printable View
The charge is 'Presenting a horse to race with a prohibited substance', not 'Administering a horse with a prohibited substance'. The inference that all the knockers are making is that if the horse did present with a substance, they administered it as well. They won't hear any BS excuse or other boloney. Their minds are made up and anything to the contrary is a cover up or conspiracy to protect the sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Hando
Yeah i'm not saying that just they are pos.
I wasn't inferring that you were thinking that. Apologies if that's how it reads to you.
No worries Tim wasn't sure .
Spoke to a chemist today who has horses.He told me that masking agents are not a myth are a fact dirutetics are one but said there are a lot of them.I then asked how they worked and he said the simplest way to explain is in a urine sample they confuse the detection of the substance by mixing with the steroid or whatever they are masking.Also explained that a lot of masking agents are banned for that reasonQuote:
Originally Posted by TSW
In the 2 recent cases for TCO2 positive swabs for A Bucca & J Glover, the decision on penalty included in Mr Glover's case the "the level of the prohibited substance detected" ....so why are we not privy to the levels detected in all cases of positive swabs??????? It would make it easier to understand the penalties given. We don't even know whether the level of Glover or Bucca was the higher?????? The inference here would be that the Glover level was maybe higher (Just a guess!), than Bucca, but because of the previous misdemeanour by Bucca his penalty was higher,but only just. I won't go into personal circumstances???
Mr Glover was disqualified for a period of 10 months effective immediately. In assessing penalty Stewards took into account, his guilty plea, his unblemished record for offences under a similar Rule, the level of the prohibited substance detected, the nature the of the prohibited substance, the seriousness of the offence and his personal circumstances
Mr Bucca was disqualified for a period of 12 months effective immediately. In assessing penalty Stewards took into account, his guilty plea, his previous offence under a similar Rule, , the nature the of the prohibited substance, the seriousness of the offence, the status of the race and his personal circumstances.
Therefore, if the levels were advised, the discussion here would possbly be limited i.e. a much higher level of Boldenone than could possibly be naturally occurring in a horse (stallion), would therefore rule out this for a start.................my point being that HRNSW gives out ambiguous information regarding "irregularities"..........the recent case of detected EPO..........which has been sent to another lab for testing at present. They may as well not have have told us, they won't mention who is involved, and as far as anybody knows that trainer is still operating.......so what was the point!..........I am not asking for a copy of the labs report either! We continue to discuss TCO2 levels every day or so, but don't know the levels detected...........HRNSW can you help us out??????
Under harness racings prohibited substances policy it doesn't matter what the level is or what the substance is they are all treated the same. I don't like it but that's the way it is. If you read the transcripts of appeals that show levels there. The lines stating all the things they considered is just to stop them being considered at an appeal later.
As for disqualifications for big name trainers it didn't happin and won't happin. They are too important for racing. Disqualifications are for the no namers and fines are for the big boys..
The stewards have assessed their penalties for the offences and part of the penalty includes "the level of the prohibited substance detected" so therefore the level should be advised...............it is quite simple........I know the offence is proven, their statement not mine, but I am supportive of the fact that levels do make a diffrerence to penalty!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by tiny
Am I right to believe that these stewards hearings of serious offences are held behind closed doors and verdicts and penalties are paraphrased with minimal detail to their own websites only.?
That's correct TC. No more detail avalible other than what is in the media brief and they appear to be a templet that you just change the name and substance and penalty.
Full transcripts of appeals are published though.