Peter Morris Sr returns positive swab

Not just a slap on the wrist Karloo Krew but a 2 year suspension with a 12 month suspended sentence i think he has now to front the steward's to explain the suspended sentence don't know what it was for but
the rule states
(5) (a) Penalties other than a period of disqualification or a warning off under this or any other rule may be suspended for a period not exceeding 12 months upon such terms and conditions as the Controlling Body or Stewards see fit;

(b) If the offender does not breach any term or condition imposed during the period of suspension, the penalty shall be waived;

(c) If the offender breaches any term or condition imposed during the period of suspension then, unless the Controlling Body or Stewards otherwise order, the suspended penalty thereupon comes into force and penalties may also be imposed in respect of any offence constituted by the breach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

G'day Starship,
I'm not about to defend his actions, his record is deplorable. However having known Peter for quite a long time...I think it was through Joe & Daniel Cordina that I first met him?....I've found it very hard to reconcile the Peter that I see at the races & talk to now and again with the Peter who does whatever it is that he does/has done over the years to so fairly regularly get himself into strife. At the risk of being howled down here, he is a very nice bloke, certainly very friendly & all. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this way, perhaps not. Crazy stuff whatever the case. Never understood why they do it. Never will.

Seemed to have tempered your hatered towards cheats it would seem VVV. Wouldn't be because of the loss of your annominity would it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild

Seemed to have tempered your hatered towards cheats it would seem VVV. Wouldn't be because of the loss of your annominity would it?

No, I've never yet pulled a punch Leigh. I think it's just stunned bemusement.

Hi everyone first time poster long time reader...
I'm a little confused about the wide range of punishments that are handed out for positive swabs for TCO2 Peter Morris gets 14months. Jnr gets 14 months. Mr Thomas has 2 positives gets 14 months so 7 months each. Butterfieild cops 12. Morris has a previous swab that got 2 years but is suspended. Another guy not to long ago walked out with four months he must be in the know. I can't work it out!!\

I read in the trot guide a few months ago a story that said harness racing NSW has a policy that the penalty for all TCO2 swabs is 12months and it doesn't mater if it is over by a mill or a mile. This being the case shouldn't all the above get twelve months? and this also being the case when they are appealed can they then say some other people have received 4 and 7 months and some cases have been suspended. I think both Morris Snr and Jnr should feel a bit hard done by.

It appears to me that when it comes to positive TCO2s the policy is just make it up as we go or spin the big chocolate wheel and see what it lands on.

Your thoughts cause i can't work it out

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiny

Hi everyone first time poster long time reader...
I'm a little confused about the wide range of punishments that are handed out for positive swabs for TCO2 Peter Morris gets 14months. Jnr gets 14 months. Mr Thomas has 2 positives gets 14 months so 7 months each. Butterfieild cops 12. Morris has a previous swab that got 2 years but is suspended. Another guy not to long ago walked out with four months he must be in the know. I can't work it out!!\

I read in the trot guide a few months ago a story that said harness racing NSW has a policy that the penalty for all TCO2 swabs is 12months and it doesn't mater if it is over by a mill or a mile. This being the case shouldn't all the above get twelve months? and this also being the case when they are appealed can they then say some other people have received 4 and 7 months and some cases have been suspended. I think both Morris Snr and Jnr should feel a bit hard done by.

It appears to me that when it comes to positive TCO2s the policy is just make it up as we go or spin the big chocolate wheel and see what it lands on.

Your thoughts cause i can't work it out

The policy is as I understand it is 12 months for a first offence TC02,

The law dictates and I think its in the policy that a discount on penalty is applied for a good record this is the same in most sporting or judicial hearings.

The other discount that is then applied is for a guilty plea again this is pretty common ground throughout sporting and judicial systems.

Every Judge at every sporting tribunal will tell you that each case has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances, that is simply what HRNSW are doing to abide by the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness.

If you compared time in the game and records in relation to previous prohibited substance breaches and the circumstances of each case I honestly think HRNSW have got these penalties all pretty right.

Butterfield first prohibited substance offence but very short time in the game so very little discount here.

Thomas, Morris and Morris jrn all repeat offenders.

The 2 year suspended sentence for Morris was for an unrelated drug and there was a strong argument that it was not caught under the rules as a prohibited substance the way the rules were then worded, there had been some appeals and it was tricky ground indeed.

Many will appeal so I suppose we will see then if the judge agrees with me.

It would be totally improper if everyone who walked through the door just got 12 months and see you later, the appeal system would dictate that this did not happen.

Thanks for your thoughts VOR. I still don't understand. Mcintosh (I had to google the story to find the name) received 4 months after a good record for 13 years seems a pretty big discount and Thomas had two positives but it appears that they only count as one. The 14 months for the Morris's is a premium for previous form or for being a morris.

I still don't get how penaltys can range from 4 to 14 months for the samething.

I'm pretty shore there's a big chocolate wheel

When you read the report on Mcintosh you will see why he got the discount his confirmatory analysis did not find TCO 2 above the allowable threshold.

There are many that would say, myself included, this should not have been a positive swab finding.

Not so long ago it would not have been in NSW and may not have been declared positive in some other states even as I type this.

So in real terms it is not the same thing.

Thomas and Morris are not first offenders hence the higher than 12 months and both codes always seem to order swabs penalties from the same substance on the same day be severed concurrently it is custom and practice and also provides the legal president that judges love.

In other words had the stewards ordered to be severed cumulatively they almost certainly would have lost at appeal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

When you read the report on Mcintosh you will see why he got the discount his confirmatory analysis did not find TCO 2 above the allowable threshold.

Was the original test a positive regardless of the margin of error?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

There are many that would say, myself included, this should not have been a positive swab finding.

Yes I am also of this opinion. If the confirmatory test is clear then IMHO I believe a trainer should be given the benefit of the doubt. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Saying

Was the original test a positive regardless of the margin of error?

To be clear in very simple terms I am not an analyst, when a horse is tested six tubes of blood are taken and analysed the average of the readings gives a level, if the average is above the allowable threshold then the other three are tested to confirm this finding.

In NSW at the moment if the confirmatory analysis does not confirm it is still deemed positive, it is not a second test but another test of blood collected at the same time.

Why have a confirmatory test if it had no use.