I don't disagree Brendan - is it any wonder that people are leaving the game
Printable View
I don't disagree Brendan - is it any wonder that people are leaving the game
http://www.harnesslink.com/Australia...-in-nightclubs
It looks like the constabulary will look after these couple for us
We have been talking about eliminating repeat offenders from the sport but I notice in last night's Mildura results that David Vozlic is back in a big way.
A search makes for some colourful reading: 2004, 2008, 2012
Messenger, personally I think people convicted of certain criminal offenses should never be aloud to be involved in our sport. I'm not just talking about the person you mentioned, I think anyone with drug dealing convictions or convictions for violent crimes has no place in our sport. People should have to wait at least 10 years after completing a prison sentence before even being considered for a licence. It's just not a good look for our sport and many leopards never change their spots.
Any attachments to go with that Kev?Quote:
We have been talking about eliminating repeat offenders from the sport but I notice in last night's Mildura results that David Vozlic is back in a big way.
A search makes for some colourful reading: 2004, 2008, 2012
Here's the 2012 incident Pat.
http://www.sunraysiadaily.com.au/sto...-amphetamines/
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=D...hrome&ie=UTF-8Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan of Jate
The 2004 of interest is under 'Tonkin ......' on pg2 of search
How on earth can this be tolerated? How was the person mentioned able to obtain a licence, let alone use HRA's Trading Post to solicit business?Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
https://www.harness.org.au/apps/tradingring/post/129804
Wonder if Andrew Vozlic is related? He was disqualified in the Blue Magic saga along with Tonkin and Weightman.
Thanks to Google .
Good work Kev.
We are a benevolent industry when it comes to giving reformed miscreants another chance. And another and another...............
Would love to know on what grounds people are deemed to be of suitable character to be issued with a licence.
The page 2 story jogged my memory as to how Emma Stewart's rise to prominence was so rapid.
That sounds like an errand for the man at HRV..Quote:
Originally Posted by Showgrounds
Noel, Andrew and David are brothers. Andrew is currently serving one of his many disqualifications. I am disgusted that David was given his licence back.
Another 2 winners at Mildura tonight but a $1.10 and a $1.50 fav from his stable both defeatedQuote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...L040118&ms=vic
Anybody else starting to think that many professionals don't really love horses
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horserac...09-h0ftjm.html
I am sure they ALL love horses. I am CERTAIN they all love money more than they love horses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
http://www.harnesslink.com/Australia...ackle-cheating
Scala said cheating was “much more prevalent in the horse and harness racing industries” than people may believe.
That it is a scary statement when one already believes it is prevalent - simply based on the number caught
I would not be surprised if Scala gets a reminder about the Media policy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Courtesy of racing.com, a thoroughbred article relating to "top ups" https://www.racing.com/news/2018-02-...e-named-shamed
From the article-
It will then be up to breeders and owners to decide if they want to place their horses in stables where bi-carb is potentially being abused.
An interesting concept, one wonders.
And this effective from today,HRA rule amendment
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=36554
Interpreted as relating to what could be broadly classed as top ups?
Not so much the HRA amendment but having read how much our fire fighting air fleet is worth and now trialing infra red, night flights, am wondering what the drone fleet might need to be worth.
Changes to HRV stake payments effective March 2
After feedback and consultation with industry participants Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) announces the following changes to stake payments effective from the stake payment on March 2, 2018:
1. Stake payments for races with prizemoney of $10,000 and below will no longer have to wait for the release of swab results and will be paid in the next stake payment following the race;
2. The frequency of stake payment has been increased so that a payment will now occur each fortnight opposed to the previous schedule of twice per month (in some previous months it could be up to three weeks between stake payments).
“These changes will result in the vast majority of industry participants receiving stake payments earlier, more frequently and at regular intervals,” HRV General Manager Finance Luke Spano said.
In relation to 1:
Would it be too sceptical to presume the participants consulted were from, and associated with, the "professional" ranks? Again, sceptical to presume non professional participants, whether they be members of the Trainers and Drivers Association or not, weren't consulted?
The "vast majority" being those who have not had a conviction due to a positive swab and/or are not racing on a stay whilst waiting an appeal to VCAT to review a disqualification? Surely couldn't be a blanket policy especially in the case where such a trainer might win/place whilst on a stay with a swab pending for that result as well?
Whilst cash flow is important to pretty well everyone, does this policy change instil confidence or help protect all participants and punters?
Numerous groups were consulted, including the trainers and drivers association, owners association, advisory council, breeders etc. Not just the 'professional' ranks. The cash flow situation was causing some difficulties to both smaller and larger participants.
I understand the cash flow situation Carol. The increase in frequency of payments alone would help to a fair extent. But the reason/s for releasing payments prior to swabs being cleared? And I do realise only a small number of swabs return positives. So I ask again, is this a blanket policy change (vast majority?) and does it help instil confidence or help protect all participants and punters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yabbie
In regards to consultation, perhaps another case of not all kindred bodies communicating well with their members.
Hi Wayne,
The 'vast majority' only refers to the fact that payments are released for races $10k and below, with winners of races with prizemoney above this level still required to await swab results. This brings HRV more or less in line with a number of other states and racing codes in Victoria. Prior to making this change, HRV consulted with the organisations that Carol listed, and took feedback from quite a number of participants/owners, etc. via the Australia wide Harness Industry Facebook Group.
This move will help a large number of participants to better manage their cash-flows without putting at risk the integrity of the sport. Punters confidence should be increased in the knowledge that HRV have doubled post-race swabs to detect cases where people are not doing the right thing.
Cheers, David
Hi David,Quote:
Originally Posted by David Martin
Thanks for replying. I did translate 'vast majority' as being the maths but the starry eyed part of me had to ask the question.
In regards to consultation, not wanting to go tit for tat but we do have the 'Harness Racer' publication and per the media release, HRV has email addresses for 95 per cent of participants. We do receive bulk emails on some matters.
Regards,
Wayne
Caffiene??
probably need a more "professional" barrister, or is that barista?
http://www.harnesslink.com/Internati...ccepts-charges
how many times do they need to go before the rest of us don't have to put up with it anymore????...........SURELY there has to be a point of no return somewhere.
Justice is slow in NZ Dan - the meeting was 9 months ago and he has already had 3 strikes.
Some quick justice and potentially there were 55 wins on offer for others
3 strikes, 4 charges over 1 weekend 9 months ago, 55 wins this season while these charges have been hanging over the stables head, It’s going to be an interesting outcome, I think a very long spell on the sidelines is in order if found guilty
I was emailed this interesting link by one of our readers
Continuing developments have to be making it harder for the cheats (provided our industry is keeping up with advances)
https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/drug-...tes-now-easier
Anybody keeping an eye on the Australia cricket saga?
We've got a pretty well defined drug classification list ranging from minor offences for therapeutic use (eg Bute) to the major stuff (eg bicarb) and the worst stuff (eg EPO). I think most people would agree other offences like whipping the horse too much or placing bets on your own horse would be deemed minor, but team driving, pulling one up, backing the opposition would be major.
On what scale does the Steve Smith offence rate in harness racing terms? Its not match fixing or performance enhancing drugs so its not at the high end of offences. Something that Bancroft/Smith have done would maybe be comparable to treating your horse with a therapeutic drug too close to race day?
Admittedly our media and fan base is on a much smaller scale to the Australian cricket side, but even proportionally speaking the public lynching of Smith is way, way worse than any of our guilty trainers cop. It really shows societies standards in sport and why our game needs to enforce tougher rules on cheats if we wish to secure more fans.
Good point Brendan.
I totally agree, lately I have felt particularly disillusioned as every time I look at the results it seems to me that too many are known offenders (past)
9mths for Joe Pace
http://www.harnesslink.com/Australia...uiry-Concluded
"The results of scientific analysis conducted on the product were also presented to the inquiry."
I wonder what the scientific analysis revealed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
A peptide?
No question about it Breno.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
What fan likes to be dudded out. I think the whole world is hoping Usain Bolt is genuinely what he is and what he was.
I rate the Smith/Warner offense equal to a bicarb first offense. They didn't even win the match. The ICC rates it a 1 match offense as they know every team is doing it. This is the major issue that is being overlooked . I'm not saying that is an excuse for doing it. Reverse swing is only achieved by tampering with the ball, it didn't exist back in the Lillee and Thomo days. A bit strange that 2 of the best bowlers of all time couldn't make the ball reverse !
HRV should note that the big names have been caught cheating and will be made examples of with big suspensions from the authorities ! That's how you enforce integrity !
I would have to rate it higher than that Rick. They were tampering with equipment in an attempt to win so I would have to say it would be equal to having a battery in your whip or something similar
Bicarb is tampering with a horse in an attempt to win.
Could be equal to carts being too wide and short ! Or arsenic fence posts ;)
Poms were caught doing it in India years ago, Vaseline and gauze, It’s quite comical watching Bancroft doing it, Real Z grade stuff, I played cricket for quite a few years as did Wayne(Arlington) Rick is absolutely right, Thomson and Lillee couldn’t get the ball to reverse nor the Mighty West Indian bowlers, The Pakistani’s were masters for getting the ball to reverse swing, There were many ways to get a ball to retain the shine, Zinc cream was one but reverse swing consists of 1 side of the ball being scuffed up and Bancroft was speeding up the process and pretty stupid to be involved, He’ll be lucky to get another Cap, Smith and Warner(Big Guns) will both cop a hefty penalty, Politicans and Media are all over it so I’m expecting that the fines and penalty’s will be fitting, As far as comparing it, I would say that team driving or pulling a horse would compare.
Almost every test match I watch these days you will see the umpires warning the players to stop deliberately throwing the ball back to the keeper on the bounce. This is done to rough the ball up or to cover up the scratches they are deliberately putting on the ball with something rough. I think it's time that they should replace the ball as soon as it starts to reverse. As you only achieve this via ball tampering.
Also strange how the ICC think it's a 1 match crime but Cricket Aus think it's a 1 year crime. If it was harness racing they would appeal and only do the 1 match or less ! Wonder If Smith will turn up on Ch 9 or Fox as a commentator during his break. He still needs to make a living. And as for ruining the sport I'm more interested in the next test much more than I was in the first 3 !
http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-h...r-mr-t-utikereQuote:
Originally Posted by Richard prior
Interesting, Thanks Tony
I am not saying that they did but I do wonder howQuote:
Originally Posted by teecee
"The RIU do acknowledge that neither of the respondents intentionally administered Caffeine to the horses in order to gain any competitive advantage."
How do they know this?
Everyone might as well just pack up now, that is laughable on several fronts, not the least of which the substance classification which has had significant bearing on the penalty.......quick question Teecee does NZ have a current Prime Minister by the name of Dunn?? just asking 'cos our PM is Turnbull.Quote:
Originally Posted by teecee