http://www.paulickreport.com/news/th...ug-violations/
Yesterday I nearly posted that LM is our Pena, very very wrong about that one.
This link has the findings, once more Holy Shit.
http://www.racing.ny.gov/pdf/05_24_12_PenaNotice.pdf
Printable View
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/th...ug-violations/
Yesterday I nearly posted that LM is our Pena, very very wrong about that one.
This link has the findings, once more Holy Shit.
http://www.racing.ny.gov/pdf/05_24_12_PenaNotice.pdf
1700+ cases and not one of them returned a positive? Gives whole new meaning to the term "Free For All". Says from his vets records. HIS vet records or his VETS records?
This bloke must be chemist. You were right not to post yesterday, no way you can compare except maybe in winning strike rates
WOW! You've missed your calling Lou. Forget about training horses. Go work for the Tobacco Industry.
Hi Jason . You have stunned us ! That is the best post article we have ever read . What a relief for all of those participants in New York . I wonder how many other trainers are ducking for cover . Great post !Quote:
Originally Posted by Starship Captain
Oh no!!!! Not another tall poppy?????
Someones gunna mention these were simply 1700 miscalculated dosages of therapeutic substances.....HaHaHaHaHaHaHaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D:D:D No, no, no, Danno. The hook here in REALLY interesting.
From what I can gather there is not a single positive swab anywhere. What these represent is 1,700 instances of, for want of a better term 'retrospective violations' which are based not on the traditonal swabs but instead on what they believe to be medications administered by the Vet inside of the withdrawal periods using the Vet's own records of same. It's fascinating stuff, probably not so much so for old mate Lou however.
Cheers Jamie,
but I didn't think for one millisecond they waited for 1700 positives to oust him!just when you read the list of substances, many of them some people will claim to be therapeutic.
Danno these 1700 were all miscalculated therapeutic substances. They just miscalculated the day they could be administered on, oops!
I've always understood that the stated withholding periods were recommened as opposed to being a violation if you were to go inside them? Maybe it's different in NY?
They've wanted his scalp for a while now and so far it looks like they've found a somewhat ingenious way of giving themselves a shot at getting it.
In saying that, I'm not entirely comfortable with it. Retrospective prosecution based not on any evidential swabs but instead on a whole series of Vet records? Geeze, there's something that's more than a little slippery slope about this for mine. That's like getting a DUI charge this morning despite being stone cold sober simply because 3 days ago you had a couple of bottles of Red with dinner.
I don't think they are working on withholding periods over there Jamie moreso on published prohibition periods that have been violated. IE the rules state that particular substances can not be administered with in a specified period before a race but in this case the veterinarians record indicate multiple violations of these rules. In a single instance you could possibly raise doubt about the accuracy of the vet's records/invoices but are you seriously going to believe the vets records were wrong 1700 times. Its an offence no doubt for mine, calculated systemic cheating no less. Withholding periods for drug free racing are a different kettle of fish
Our rules prohibit "a person" (and that is a problem in itself because I believe in some states it is an offence under veterinary practice regulations for a lay person to stomach tube a horse) to administer anything via a stomach tube within 48hrs of a race, so for mine if an invoice from a vet indicated that they had administered something/anything, even water, to a horse within that 48 hour period prior to it racing via stomach tube then that would be evidence of a trainer committing an offence. I'd have no problem with a trainer being charged accordingly.
G'day Dot,
I'm still very uncomfortable with the use of Vet records instead of Positive Tests. It seems a bit dodgy for mine. Maybe the rules are vastly different up there, I'm not familiar with them, and maybe they state that violating the former is = to scoring the latter?
Some of the stuff he has been jammed for is pretty pedestrian on the face of it but geeze, some of the others are a bit exotic to say the least. It makes me wonder what their specific use/s are/were.
Jamie I don't think its relevant what the drugs are, the rules are that they cant be administered within a defined time frame prior to racing and multiple records indicate systemic breach of the rules. Stomach tubing here with only water within 48 hours of a race is a breach of the rules but is never going to return a positive swab so does that make it ok?
After reading more on this, it looks like they just want him gone from their tracks, thats fair enough. He win's alot and that upsets alot of people.wtf
When the results of this were published, what are the chances that vets and trainers all around the world were calling each other to make certain that they
all had their shit straight.
Jason,Quote:
Originally Posted by Starship Captain
you have mentioned a few times on this forum where your prioritys are.....AS LONG AS THEY ARE WINNING, you don't give a flying how that happens.!!!!
I don't think it's important for all the people on the periphery to "get their shit straight", more like if "you walk a straight line, then you and all those about you have no fear".
Only you will know if some bells rang there mate, for your sake I hope they did.
Cheers,
Dan
After reading what has happened one thing is glaringly obvious:Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
#1.All administrations occurred under veterinary advice
#2.Mr Pana Horses did not return apostive swab
#3.They have charged him with time violations in regard to administrations of medications.
The problem with this is that once you begin prosecuting people for having medications administered by veterinarians then people will work outside supervised medical administrations. i.e no records and more risk to the horse and other competitors.
A very slippery slope indeed.
G'day MJ,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangles
just because the drugs were administered by a Vet, doesn't mean an offence not has occurred..the offence is administration within the permitted timeframe regardless of whether a vet, a registered nurse, a homeless person or a bloody sleepwalker duly administerd the substance.
The fact is a person has given evidence that the administration of said substances actually took place... enter legal arguement and the weighing up of ALL evidence and then a decison on guilt will be made.
I can't think for the life of me why one would need a positive swab result to be the only determining factor on whether someone was guilty of drugging a horse??.
I mean, I know we have come to rely on positive swabs as some burden of proof, but surely our eyes have not become so closed to suggest this is the only means of proof??
I dont think its a slippery slope at all! Another means of identifying cheats is welcome as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pretty sure most honest people would agree.
Cheers,
Dan
Thanks for the advice Dan,
Only continued fine weather here, with bright sunny day's ahead:)
Dan you have missed the point totally. People as human nature is, will and do work outside the rules but by summoning veterinary records to prosecute then people will cease using vets and a dangerous spiral will begin. No veterinary supervision means greater chance of abuse and harm to the animals and industry you wish to protect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Stable inspections and detention barns would be a safer option than to breaching the client/vet privacy.
Danno you may have inadvertantlly given the cheats a new defence ploy by using somnabulism as an excuse. Old mate is sleeping deeply, dreaming up ways to beat his rivals and sleepwalks out to the stable, picks up the the needle, does the deed and wanders back to bed, totally oblivious of what he has done. Because the act is done at such a low level of consciousness, a defence could be mounted that there was no intent by a fully functional person. However, he may have trouble explaining how illicit substances came to be in the stable in the first place!!!:o
Here's on for you. Something with a 48 hrs withholding period. Vet records indicate it was given 50hrs pre race. Horse gets a positive....Quote:
Originally Posted by broncobrad
Hey Brendan (You smashed Mango & VVV last night, Man Of Art was my only winner) Been short of time this week to follow closely, but my take is this. If under the current regime of acceptable thresholds, withholding periods etc that we currently recognise as the benchmark, if they are compromised the authority has no choice but to commence proceedings against offenders. There is no wrong or right here, it is mandatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
Hiding behind or shifting the blame to vets doesn't wash here, the trainer still has a responsibility to present the animal substance free. Similarly with Raglan, as p plater was trying to make the case for environmental changes, the fact the arsenic was present over the prescribed limit was all that was needed to find Butt guilty (which I now note he has withdrawn his appeal - what does that tell you).
If, as VVV suggests, changes need to made as to the acceptance of the use of some therapeutic substances, so be it, I agree with that. But that is up to the authority to act upon separate to the current situation.
On that big list of the 1718 cases that's in the original link posted, would be interesting to know how the horses performed on each date. The column headings have been blacked out but only one can't work out is the last one... contains an "X" sometimes. "X" for a winning performance?
#1 All administrations were obviously administerd by a vet, but is it the vets responsibility to know when each horse was next entered to race or Mr Pena's? I'd say the vet can't be expected to know Mr Pena's intentions but Mr Pena SHOULD know of the medications administered to his team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangles
#2 Why does only a positive swab indicate an offence?
#3 Are you only committing an offence by driving over the speed limit if you get caught?
Tangles you would be naive to think that people are not already admininistring substances outside of veterinary supervision, particularly in Australia where the law is different inregard to medical items and products. Yes you can argue that this may encourage it further but the problem is aready well in existence.
then Brendan you probably have a case to have the horse quarantined, the something readministered and the horse retested.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
Withholding periods are not absolutes but are based on the excretion times of a sample group plus a buffer added which covers almost all situations. Individual horses will excrete substances at different rates and it is possible an individual horse will still produce a positive after the expiration of the recommended WHP. It is the reverse effectively of the side effects listed for human drugs, one person gets a headache whilst testing a new product and even if the rest do not it goes on the side effects list.
The current protocol of WHP and post race testing is becoming antiquated in that individual trainers can use experts to develop individual protocols for the administration of performance enhancing drugs then test the horse to determine individual excretion times to ensure that the horse will be negative by a post race test whilst having benefitted fron the drug protocol during training. This some would argue may meet the present criteria for "drug free racing".
The benefits of administering steroids to athletes/horses is during the training time leading up to competition/racing, by the time the competition/race occurs the drugs have left the system but the physiological benefits remain leading to an enhanced performance in the competition or race, hence in human sports the prevelance of out of competition testing for athletes who in many sports compete far less frequently then racehorses. Racing will need to do the same, and more, if we want a level playing field.
It would appear that all of the above is superfluous if the report in today's Sunday Telegraph is correct.
Ray Thomas reports that Lou Pena's defense is,
"I am the token brown boy who everyone and their mother wants to talk about.It's racism,dude."
How do you reckon that will play out?
Since there is non identifiable drug to detect on race day and the effect as you say is psychological perhaps they are all wasting there time and money and would be better off getting in a a psychiatrist for their teamQuote:
Originally Posted by dizzy
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...qGVLd_M9G7LHgQ
MJ, closer attention to detail in the English language required.....does this sound familiar??
[VVV] I disagree with the relevancy aspect. It is EXTREMELY relevant what the drugs being used are/were Dot. Some are of therapeutic use and have a reason or reasons to be present/used. Others are not and so they have absolutely no place being in play.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzy
For example, it's one thing for a Trainer to score a Bute overage or to be found to have used it inside of time but it's another thing entirely to find...for example...a Human Dementia drug being used...which was in fact the case a year to two back with another fella who's name escapes me. Go through the list of the drugs his Vet used. As I said, some are pedestrian, some are exotic.
So Jamie your saying so long as I tube my horse with only water within 48 hours of a race that is Ok and I shouldn't be charged if caught because water is "pedestrian"?
Your actually missing the point entirely here with Mr Pena, the charges are for administering "substances" within a prohibited time frame for those "substances" as published in the rules, the breach being demonstrated by veterinary records. No doubt when the charges are heard the exact nature of the "substances" involved will have bearing on the penalties imposed.
[VVV] G'day Dot,Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzy
You are again putting words into my mouth, reading into that which I have posted on here that which is not there & then replying accordingly.
Clearly I'm not saying anything of the sort. Rather, I am merely pointing out that some of the listed substances apparently employed by old mate Lou's now likely former Vet are as common as dirt insofar as them being equine applicable meds.....whilst at the same time there seems to be others listed there that are, from what I can gather, far from being applicable for use in any horse, at any time, ever...therapeutic or otherwise. No more than that, no less than that, all silent, all done.
Incidentally, time frame wise, as I said a couple of times previously, I have absolutely no idea at all if the NY/NJ rules have an administration time frame violation being the = of a Positive Test? Perhaps they do? It's the first I've heard of such an arrangement anywhere.
This is also DEFINITELY the first time I've heard of any Trainer being called to account for their Vet's records as opposed to Positive Tests. Maybe it has happened before?
Maybe something like that also played a part in scuttling the Seldon & Eric Ledford EPO & Shockwave Emporium a few years back & prior to that sending old mate Richard 'The Dart Man' Chansky on the Lam? Don't know.
No pun intended?? :rolleyes::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple V
In May 2003 gallops trainer John Mcnair was outed for four months for having a drench tube and associated items in his truck, on the way to Sydney for the races.
Paul,
He is just testing us to see how much attention we are paying when reading his posts:)
Memory is a bit stiff, but I think Bernie Kelly got his time for having drench tubes etc in his float when stewards pulled him over with Greg Kelly about 4 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lethal
...over 700 instances of timeframe overages have resulted in ZERO positives???????????????
Not only ZERO positives but ZERO positives for a whole host of noted substances that should have been readily/easily dectected??????
To me that dicates that either the published timeframes for the various substances must be way, way wrong or otherwise their current testing regime must be absolute CRAP...or both?
Also makes me wonder how many other Stables up there would have Vet Records that could stand up to the same level of scrutiny as that which has been applied in this case. I suspect, not very many.
Is that the faint whiff of burning Vet Records that I smell in the air? Perish the thought. :rolleyes:
What the hell has anything in that statement to do with the regulations?
If it is an infringement of the the rules then it is 'mea culpa'
Well, doesn't it all peak your curiosity a little bit, Lee?
Presumably to almost certainly a pretty fair number of the horses involved in those 700+ instances of timeframe overages were also tested/swabbed pre and/or post race and those swabs have to date obviously all come up clear...so to me at least that indicates that either the adminstration timeframes are wrong and/or the pre/post race testing is absolute crap.
Rules or no rules & old mate Lou's guilt or innocence aside, surely it comes down to one or the other or as I said before, perhaps even to both?
On a general note, given the demonstrated apparent ineffective state of the Testing up there, I bet my left & right cajones that old mate is not the only one who's employing a whole range range of substances inside of the official timeframes...and not subsequently coming up with Positives.
If the NY & the NJ authorities were to apply the same level of scrutiny to a whole host of other Trainers I guarentee you they would find EXACTLY the same timeframe violations in play.
Evens into odds on and shortening that the Vets up there have dialled right into the testing parameters and have been/are operating accordingly.
They're not like our guys & girls who cheerfully roll up up the driverway in their Nissan Navara armed with their trusty dart full of Banamine and jam it into your colic stricken horse.
Some of them are more like the animated Mad Professor in the open credits to Robot Chicken.
http://cdn.gunaxin.com/wp-content/up...eb_380x253.jpg
Jamie,
Yes it does, but I guess it shows what has been known for ages, that with the right backing (money/knowledge) then the rules, as (were/are) applicable at that (whenever) time can be easily manipulated. However, drenching and injecting rules have had non compliance and the result, just like presenting a horse to race with a DETECTABLE drug must, under these regulations have the trainer found guilty.
To represent Australian vets as only mirror images of James & Siegfried (ACG&S) would suggest that they really don't have a clue, when a bit of research might show most racing oriented ones just don't leave a paper trail.