Karloo kix ok to race, pending enquiry

KARLOO KIX is OK to race...............due to stewards report below from HRNSW.....so what does this mean...........will the stewards swab each run......will he be disqualified from his subsequent runs if the previous swab is proven positive..........owners of horses will be scratching their heads if the first result is positive and therefore the horse should not have been allowed to race in the first place! Are we not being told something............I think we are entitled to know the thoughts a bit more than a very summarised report!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=17840

I think the stewards now have a pretty far idea that there has been an error made. They will just go through the motions of having an inquiry. I think it is unlikely there will be any charges laid.
After they allowed Raglin to race this is a fair decision.

I think the "Colonel" should get on TrotsTV today, and explain what is going on?.............when the "irregularity" was first noticed were these horses banned from racing, if not, why make a statement that they are OK to race pending the enquiry???...........therefore, how long before the results of the 2nd testing are known, and will it be before the hearing date on 20th March?? No wonder there is suspicion and bad publicity about Harness racing!

I would like to think you are right Tiny but i don't think you are.

Karloo Kix is in friday night at Bathurst........Race 5, No.7

I hope the authorities dot their I's and cross their T's on this one....we dont need another situation like the Russo caffeine farce of a couple years ago....

Barry Lew disqualified 6 months
http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=17911

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiny

I think the stewards now have a pretty far idea that there has been an error made. They will just go through the motions of having an inquiry. I think it is unlikely there will be any charges laid.
After they allowed Raglin to race this is a fair decision.

---

Congratulations to HRNSW on another successful charge! Keep up the good work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardvark

I hope the authorities dot their I's and cross their T's on this one....we dont need another situation like the Russo caffeine farce of a couple years ago....

---

Exactly how was it a farce , once the swab was found to be positive Russo amazingly remembered there was a problem with the collection process, he did not mention it the night the horse won , only when it was positive a few months later.. in fact the stable as all stables do signed a document saying all was ok with the collection process on the night of the race

The stewards dismissed this defence and charged him... on appeal the judge found there may have been contamination when the alleged problem with collection occurred.

Go figure

Can't see in any of the reports how Barry Lew pleaded, he got six months for using steroids, what a joke these penalties are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Itisi

Can't see in any of the reports how Barry Lew pleaded, he got six months for using steroids, what a joke these penalties are.

---

Being a bit harsh, 40 years with a clean record must count for something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clumsy

Being a bit harsh, 40 years with a clean record must count for something.

---

Disagree 40 years must have known cant use steroids that are performance enhancing just hope he learns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clumsy

Being a bit harsh, 40 years with a clean record must count for something.

---

40 years with a clean record means f... all he has been found guilty of using steroids,penalties have to be a lot harsher to deter these people who want to cheat. The one thing that I can't get my head around is why would he start now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Itisi

40 years with a clean record means f... all he has been found guilty of using steroids,penalties have to be a lot harsher to deter these people who want to cheat. The one thing that I can't get my head around is why would he start now.

---

Obviously thought he could get away with it didnt and now pays the penalty.Sad thing is Karloo Mick an iron horse is now tainted in some minds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barney

Obviously thought he could get away with it didnt and now pays the penalty.Sad thing is Karloo Mick an iron horse is now tainted in some minds

---

Still like to find out how he pleaded

Looking back through other releases of drug hearings the term "pleaded guilty" and "Found Guilty" are used.
Without the transparency of a fully minuted hearing report (as per norm for Australian hearings) I presume "found guilty" follows from a not guilty plea.
The report for the LEW case says "found guilty".

He mightn't have known what it was and believe me he is paying for it in more way's than you will ever know. And knowing the type of person he is he probably pleaded guilty and manned up and took the penalty .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Hando

He mightn't have known what it was and believe me he is paying for it in more way's than you will ever know. And knowing the type of person he is he probably pleaded guilty and manned up and took the penalty .

---

Teecee is right if it is reported as "found guilty" then Barry Lew either pleaded not guilty or did not enter a plea when charged, in that case the stewards are required to make a finding of guilt or otherwise before proceeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Hando

He mightn't have known Are you suggesting Mr Lew is dumb? C'mon of course he knew. what it was and believe me he is paying for it in more way's than you will ever know. And knowing the type of person he is he probably pleaded guilty and manned up and took the penalty .

---

Is he paying for it and feeling sorry that he cheated, or just feeling sorry he got caught?
But good on him for pleading guilty and copping it.

So Barry has been found guilty. Are we, Joe Public, entitled to further information from the panel in regards as to why the boldenone levels exceeded the prescribed acceptable levels and/or is there any information forthcoming that would explain how the excessive levels came to be in the horse.

As Greg stated, if Barry was the type of bloke to put his hand up, has he admitted to administering the prohibited substance himself? And if that was the case, is this why he only got six months.

I am not hanging the bloke, got too much respect for him. But to remove or confirm suspicion it would be more helpful for all concerned, if more information was made available. Or would HRNSW rather keep their cards close to their chest until after Mach Wipers case is dealt with? Too many unanswered questions floating around.

Next question.......as the 2 positives were on the same night....is this a coincidence or is there a common denominator between the stables?

One question can be answered.
He was not charged and therefore not convicted of administering it himself.
The charge is "Presenting the horse to race with a prohibited substance at a level exceeding the threshold....".
I agree the information they give out after inquiries is minimal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teecee

One question can be answered.
He was not charged and therefore not convicted of administering it himself.
The charge is "Presenting the horse to race with a prohibited substance at a level exceeding the threshold....".
I agree the information they give out after inquiries is minimal.

---

The charge is only that because in the great majority of cases that can stick but actually proving the trainer administered it themselves would be nigh on impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teecee

One question can be answered.
He was not charged and therefore not convicted of administering it himself.
The charge is "Presenting the horse to race with a prohibited substance at a level exceeding the threshold....".
I agree the information they give out after inquiries is minimal.

---

Yes, thats true Teecee, but the inquiry should atleast address how the levels may have been exceeded, what the likely causes were, even if this could be used as a future reference for trainers that may find themselves in a similar situation. I am just hopeful more information is disseminated in the not too distant future.

These guys want integrity back in the sport...well be professional and give more quantifying reports, not just little press releases that tell us bugger all. This finding does nothing more than find Barry guilty of a charge and paints him in a bad light in full glare of the public, regardless of how the levels were exceeded, whether knowing or unknowingly.

That is so true. And guess what, that rule is one of "strict liability"..!!!!
Gosh I didn't think they had rules like that there.
Gosh, lots of people told me Oz dont have rules like that and we shouldn't have them either.
Well it seems that NSW does>>!!

190. (1)A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.
(2) If a horse is presented for a race otherwise than in accordance with sub rule (1) the trainer of the horse is guilty of an offence.
(4) An offence under sub rule (2) or sub rule (3) is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse.
!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncobrad

Yes, thats true Teecee, but the inquiry should atleast address how the levels may have been exceeded, what the likely causes were, even if this could be used as a future reference for trainers that may find themselves in a similar situation. I am just hopeful more information is disseminated in the not too distant future.

These guys want integrity back in the sport...well be professional and give more quantifying reports, not just little press releases that tell us bugger all. This finding does nothing more than find Barry guilty of a charge and paints him in a bad light in full glare of the public, regardless of how the levels were exceeded, whether knowing or unknowingly.

---

Brad the main reason that more information is not provided in positive swab case is simple. Trainers or at least 99.9% of them go in with the same defence, that is I have no idea how it got there sir, no idea at all.

The simple facts are that short of an admission of administration the only rule that can be used is presenting a horse to race, as has already been quoted.

This is not confined to Harness Racing nor is it confined to NSW and it is the reason the rules are written in the way they are now worded. throughout most horse racing jurisdictions, proving administration is nigh on impossible.

Prohibited substance breaches are as already pointed out ones of strict liability so you present the horse with a prohibited substance in its system you are guilty of an offence regardless of how the horse got the substance, it is as simple as that.

You are asking the stewards to provide you with information they simply in most cases do not have, because most trainers will not fess up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Brad the main reason that more information is not provided in positive swab case is simple. Trainers or at least 99.9% of them go in with the same defence that is I have no idea how it got there sir no idea at all.

The simple facts are this short of an admission of administration the only rule that is used is presenting a horse to race as has already been quoted.

This is not confined to Harness Racing nor is it confined to NSW and it is the reason the rules are written in the way they are now worded.

Prohibited substance breaches are as already pointed out one of strict liability so you present the horse with a prohibited substance in its system you are guilty of an offence regardless of how the horse got the substance it is as simple as that.

You are asking the stewards to provide you with information they simply in most cases do not have because most trainers will not fess up.

---

I think that the least they can advise is the actual level of substance measured in both the A & B samples as per the respective laboratories! Therefore, the level will be above the threshold, and therefore the case is proven........in every enquiry the trainer/owner etc. would be advised of the actual laboratory measurement!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Brad the main reason that more information is not provided in positive swab case is simple. Trainers or at least 99.9% of them go in with the same defence, that is I have no idea how it got there sir, no idea at all.

---

There will definitely be an appeal out of this one would think.

VOR....how could you possible know what defence trainers use? Aren't swab inquiries closed court til they go to appeal??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardvark

There will definitely be an appeal out of this one would think.

VOR....how could you possible know what defence trainers use? Aren't swab inquiries closed court til they go to appeal??

---

As I said in 99.9% of cases that is the defence I did not say or even hint it was the defence used in this case.

Read the appeal findings ... The judge will usually review the evidence " the trainer does not know how it got there".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Form Student

I think that the least they can advise is the actual level of substance measured in both the A & B samples as per the respective laboratories! Therefore, the level will be above the threshold, and therefore the case is proven........in every enquiry the trainer/owner etc. would be advised of the actual laboratory measurement!

---

Unfortunately Steve you may be wrong there, I am far from being an analyst however what they will tell you is that swab findings provide what is refereed to a Qualitative Analysis not a Quantitative.

TCO2 cases are different because there is an allowable threshold and perhaps Boldenone also fits into this category because it too has a threshold as I understand it, but in general terms there is not a level provided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Unfortunately Steve you may be wrong there, I am far from being an analyst however what they will tell you is that swab findings provide what is refereed to a Qualitative Analysis not a Quantitative.

TCO2 cases are different because there is an allowable threshold and perhaps Boldenone also fits into this category because it too has a threshold as I understand it, but in general terms there is not a level provided.

---

If that is the case, why aren't the results being challenged......surely, it definitely needs to have quantitative support! If I get picked up for PCA by the police......the minimum I want to know is whether it is zero, low, medium or high!............then they will give me the actual reading...........then how qualitative can they be??

There is indeed a threshold for boldenone. Like TCO2's, an overage has to be quantified.
When it comes to Trainers facing Positives...IMO that's the single biggest problem we face in Harness Racing VOR.
It is a stone colt fact that there are a whole host of substances (I mentioned Bute in another post) that could not possibly be having any effect whatsoever at the levels at which they or their metabolites can still be detected...but nevertheless,as the rules are written a Trainer has a case to answer and can and will get time and/or a fine. Thresholds should be set for a range of therapeutic substances, above which a Trainer has a case to answer, below which they do not. Furthermore, it is my belief that levels must be provided in each and every case. Positives must be quantified. I'm surprised someone who has scored a positive for, again, Bute for example, hasn't taken it further for a quantitative report and then fought it on that basis. There definitely are testing testing methods available which indicate if it had been administered 12-24-36-48-72-96 hrs ago or more. They frequently use them in the US & CAN. Perhaps our Testing people already do this but because it is currently carried out on a Yes it is present or No it is not basis, they simply do not record/publish/pass on same?

HRNSW PENALTY GUIDELINES
PENALTY GUIDELINES FOR THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES AND TCO2 POSITIVES
First Offences Only
• Penalty commencements – 12 month disqualification
• Discounts that may be applied for guilty plea – 2 months
• Licensee records – 1 month discount per 5 years of clean record under rule 19
*For exemplary records where it is found that a person has not offended under this Rule for a period of 20 Years, Suspensions of License may be substituted for disqualifications. Furthermore in extenuating circumstances fines may be applied
**Whilst the above template should be followed where possible, the circumstances of the case and class of the drug may also result in variations of template guidelines being substituted

This may help understand how these penalties are determined by stewards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clumsy

HRNSW PENALTY GUIDELINES
PENALTY GUIDELINES FOR THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES AND TCO2 POSITIVES
First Offences Only
• Penalty commencements – 12 month disqualification
• Discounts that may be applied for guilty plea – 2 months
• Licensee records – 1 month discount per 5 years of clean record under rule 19
*For exemplary records where it is found that a person has not offended under this Rule for a period of 20 Years, Suspensions of License may be substituted for disqualifications. Furthermore in extenuating circumstances fines may be applied
**Whilst the above template should be followed where possible, the circumstances of the case and class of the drug may also result in variations of template guidelines being substituted

This may help understand how these penalties are determined by stewards.

---

In most case the penalties have been very close to theses guidelines, remembering of course the guidelines only deal with first offence matters.

Barry to fight on...

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=96534

It will be interesting to see what Luke McCarthy decides to plead? This case is getting strange!

http://www.hrnsw.com.au/assets/files...%20B%20Lew.pdf

Yesterday the appeal by Barry was dismissed. The process of swab collection was put under the microscope and there was not enough evidence to suggest any short comings of the procedure adopted by the swab attendant Ms Morgan. The question of a contaminant being introduced during the collection process was found to be speculative and not enough to sway the tribunal.

HRNSW sought costs of $45,000. Thats right $45,000.

The amount ordered to be paid was $5,000.

It sort of makes you wonder where this puts the appeal of Mr L McCarthy right now. In chess the right thing to do is say 'On Guard', you are one move away from Checkmate.