Hrnsw keeping up to the mark

HRNSW have released new penalty guidelines with 3 classes of drugs found in animals with varying disqualifications pertaining to the class.

Note the therapeutic class infringements have varying levels of disqualifications that get stiffer with each infringement. There are going to be some people jumping up and down about this.

For mine, HRNSW has onced again stepped up to the mark in trying to bring integrity to the sport. Well done.

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=98108

There would be a few people out there than can be thankful that this is not retrospective in light of the last twelve months of positives.

Well done HRNSW. Let's hope consistency in penalties will be the order of the day, no matter who are the offenders and a level playing field will be obtained.

Ok Brad, I'm your Huckleberry.

Roll On for Classes 1 & 2...three cheers...however I have a significant problem with the Class 3's.

The penalties there are way too steep for the presence of genuine equine therapeutics & especially so where, as VOR as mentioned before, there is currently no quantitative testing in place.

Instead,the various Labs either can't or they simply do not report the exact level/s of the substance/s found, thus immediately preventing a very legitimate line of defense for the Trainer concerned..as in the substance/s may well have been detected but they were not present in a pharmacologically active amount.

Until such time as there are a series of widely published & understood Thresholds in place for Class 3's then IMO it'll be unfair at that end of the spectrum.
In fact, to cut to the chase, the vast majority of Positives are the result of therapeutic overages & penalties such as those for the substances that fall into that category are Draconian to say the least.

I go home and give my stiff and sore horse some Phenylbutazone around 11pm Saturday night after I've raced him at Menangle & wonderful stuff that it is, it aids in his post race recovery for around about 12 hours...however it will have stopped working appreciably by around about mid-day-1pm on Sunday & by feed time on Sunday night (say 5pm) it's having absolutely zero physiological/pharmacological/analgesic/ pain killing effect at all.

Nevertheless, if I happened to then drop that horse in to race on Thursday night at Penrith & I get swabbed then, despite the fact that I am some 96hrs+ post administration and despite the fact that the Bute stopped working some 80+ hours prior, there is still a very real chance that I'd score a Bute positive and be outed for 12 months.

That my friends is not Regulatory, that is instead nothing short of ABSOLUTELY $#&%ING ABSURD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple V

Roll On for Classes 1 & 2...three cheers...however I have a significant problem with the Class 3's.

The penalties there are way too steep for the presence of genuine equine therapeutics & especially so where, as VOR as mentioned before, there is currently no quantitative testing in place.

Instead,the various Labs either can't or they simply do not report the exact level/s of the substance/s found, thus immediately preventing a very legitimate line of defense for the Trainer concerned..as in the substance/s may well have been detected but they were not present in a pharmacologically active amount.

Until such time as there are a series of widely published & understood Thresholds in place for Class 3's then IMO it'll be unfair at that end of the spectrum.
In fact, to cut to the chase, the vast majority of Positives are the result of therapeutic overages & penalties such as those for the substances that fall into that category are Draconian to say the least.

I go home and give my stiff and sore horse some Phenylbutazone around 11pm Saturday night after I've raced him at Menangle & wonderful stuff that it is, it aids in his post race recovery for around about 12 hours...however it will have stopped working appreciably by around about mid-day-1pm on Sunday & by feed time on Sunday night (say 5pm) it's having absolutely zero physiological/pharmacological/analgesic/ pain killing effect at all.

Nevertheless, if I happened to then drop that horse in to race on Thursday night at Penrith & I get swabbed then, despite the fact that I am some 96hrs+ post administration and despite the fact that the Bute stopped working some 80+ hours prior, there is still a very real chance that I'd score a Bute positive and be outed for 12 months.

That my friends is not Regulatory, that is instead nothing short of ABSOLUTELY $#&%ING ABSURD.

Hi Jaimie . The fact is that you know that you'll go for a positive . Don't give the horse bute if you want to race it within 9 days . Absurd NO . This is the most positive step HRNSW has taken . It may save the industry . Absolutely fantastic . If anyone is so stupid as to race their horse when there is a question mark over them returning a positive swab then really what are they doing ? If your that stupid see ya in 2 years

Hey Triple...we are not in Tombstone...no need for the dramatics.:) Obviously the Class 3 infringement is going to upset people as I alluded to. It would seem the regulatory authority has decided on a total prohibition to (any) presence of any of the listed therapeutic substances that are present in animals presented at trials or race meets and have taken a hard line. You make a point and have a far greater understanding of excretion rates of various medications, but if they have set a zero tolerance limit, well old mate that leaves you on the sideline for twelve months to start with, to ponder where you went wrong. No matter how much you administered or how early the horse was medicated.

As you have often said before, the rules are the rules are the rules. At this stage it would seem if you want any change to your way of thinking, you need to get a deputation together, heads of industry, concerned participants etc and start talking to the regulators.

You could well be the Doc Holliday that your supporters are looking to for guidance. From my perspective this is a genuine effort by HRNSW to put in place some decent penaltys for intentionally doping horses, re: Class 1 & 2. In the Class 3 category there will no doubt be honest mistakes and miscalculations made by well intentioned trainers and it will be interesting to see how these overages will be dealt with. Maybe over time it will be fine tuned, who knows.

This is the most positive step forward in cleaning up our game I have seen in many years, Congratualtions th HRNSW in taking this bold and positive stance against the cheats in our industry , as Mark alluded, if you want to run the gauntlet with "therapeutic" administration timing then expect the fallout!
Therapeutic drugs should not be used to get a horse to the races more often, they are designed to assist the horse in healing, not allow the "trainer" to take the horse to the races twice a week!!

Great news indeed, every honest trainer and owner in NSW will be stoked with this development and HRNSW has certainly shown strong leadership with these new guidelines, no doubt others will follow.
In my humble opinion this is wonderfull news, the game has not had better news for a very long time, once again congratulations to HRNSW!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark diegutis

Hi Jaimie . The fact is that you know that you'll go for a positive . Don't give the horse bute if you want to race it within 9 days . Absurd NO . This is the most positive step HRNSW has taken . It may save the industry . Absolutely fantastic . If anyone is so stupid as to race their horse when there is a question mark over them returning a positive swab then really what are they doing ? If your that stupid see ya in 2 years

[VVV] G'day Mark, I am nothing short of gobsmacked that you think it is in any way reasonable that a Trainer can get picked up for minute/trace amounts of Bute metabolites some 80+ hours AFTER the substance has completely and utterly stopped having any pharmacological effect whatsoever. If that is not absurd then I do not know what is.

Below is an article published by RacingNSW this year following positive findings to Synephrine in a number of swabs, it was republished by HRNSW at the time.

This week a Victorian gallops trainer had no action taken for two swabs positive to the same substance.

All looks simple right... well not so ....problem is positive swabs are not always simple there were two, yes two Harness Trainers punished in 2010 for positive swabs to this drug, at the time it was not known that it was found in a weed, how fair would it have been had those trainers automatically been given 12 months disqualification or longer.

At least one contributor to this forum was lucky to not be penalised for a positive swab to a prohibited substance when it was found his horse simply had ingested thorn apple yet another common weed that horses sometime get fed because it grows well in lucerne hay.

By all means get rid of the cheats ....I have also attached the report from Victoria ... I wonder which class this drug might have been under in this new penalty structure perhaps it was even longer than 12 months simply because they fed there horses hay...... sorry but it does not seem right to me.

*******************
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Warning To Trainers Regarding Synephrine
Trainers are warned to be on the lookout for plants that are known to contain the prohibited substance synephrine which has been detected in raceday samples taken from racehorses in competing in NSW.
Synephrine is an “adrenergic stimulant” known to affect the metabolism of body fat, and has been demonstrated to cause an increase in blood pressure in human subjects consuming synephrine orally.
Synephrine is traditionally found in the peel extract of bitter orange (also called Seville orange). Bitter orange is an ingredient in a number of herbal preparations and nutritional supplements which are promoted to aid in weight loss and to suppress appetite in humans.
These products are available over-the-counter in pharmacies and in health food and dietary supplement stores, as well as from internet-based suppliers.
However, synephrine has also been detected in certain plants, including the plant known as the common rush (Juncus usitatus), also known as the pin rush or mat rush, as well as in the leaves of the mandarin tree.
Trainers are advised to ensure their horses do not have access to the common rush or the leaves of citrus trees if they are allowed access to open yards or are grazing on pasture.
The ingestion of these materials may lead to the detection of the prohibited substance synephrine in a raceday sample.

****************

Flemington trainer John Sadler has avoided a penalty after he pleaded guilty to two charges relating to positive swabs returned by stable runners earlier this year.

The two horses, Deep Cove and Irish Golfer returned positive samples showing traces of Synephrine following wins at Sandown and Werribee in January.

Both horses were disqualified from their first placings.

The Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board sighted "unique circumstances" of the case as to the reason no penalty was issued when they heard the case on Tuesday.

A conviction was recorded against Sadler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple V

[VVV] G'day Mark, I am nothing short of gobsmacked that you think it is in any way reasonable that a Trainer can get picked up for minute/trace amounts of Bute metabolites some 80+ hours AFTER the substance has completely and utterly stopped having any pharmacological effect whatsoever. If that is not absurd then I do not know what is.

Hi triple. I think that this is approaching two different arguments (maybe even three). 1st argument ( Mark's point ) is that at the moment the rules say if you go positive then you will be outed. Hence the trainer has to manage race engagements. If you use "Phenylbutazone" then don't race within 9 days or what ever the excrection time frame is.
2nd argument - (yours) The Active "therapeutic" time frame being used instead of excretion time frame. (Which is a good argument) but is reliant on:
3rd argument - Labs ability to give a quantitative as well as qualitative result. Because there are trainers out there that will push their luck and try to race right on the theraputic time frame either "backing up" or treating for effect.

Hey TVOR

It appears to me that under the new guidelines for a Class 3 infraction, if a substance is detected, there is enough room to move in defence of maladministration by a trainer if there is compelling evidence to establish he unknowingly presented a horse with a prohibited substance present. You raise an obvious defence of contaminated feed, and where in the past, the trainer would be automatically found guilty as charged and a mandatory DQ would apply, that trainer would now be able to fight the charge with a bit more scope. If this will have a detrimental effect by causing a backlog in the appeals process remains to be seen. But it does allow for due process and is clearly stated in the new quidelines "stewards may consider a reduction on compelling evidence that the person did not administer or caused to administer the prohibited substance or did not know or have reason to believe it was administered etc etc. This demonstrates to me that there is more room to move on both sides, but then that word consistency will come into play.

In the John Sadler case it appears the VRC stewards used commonsense, if not their discretionary powers to not take any further action except to DQ the horses. Interesting days ahead for our stewards who in their job descriptions should now have, competent understanding of pharmacology as a requirement.

Brad

You have missed the point when HRNSW stewards dealt with this matter it was not recognized that this substance could be and most likely was, given the time of year, ingested naturally.

My point is these people would have under the new penalty guidelines been disqualified for a minimum of 12 months ... the clarity of hindsight would say that was not appropriate but how do you give them the time back.

There is no doubt the RAD board and Racing NSW before them have got it right, its HRNSW who got it wrong a couple of years back through no fault of their own as the information was not available.

Bill

I took your point but I think you are making an error in saying they would receive a minimum DQ of 12 months, the way I read it, its a maximum of 12 months with the possibility of reduction with compelling evidence. The Class 1 and 2 are minimimum DQs.

Surely HRNSW are learning more each time these 'odd' cases come to light, I too recall the alert a few months ago about the paddocks affected and owners/trainers told to be aware their horses may be effected.. They didn't just sit on their hands, they recognised the potential for contamination and did something. Yes, Bill in the past errors in detection, source of ingestion or administration may have occurred and there may have been some penalised unfairly. I cannot speak for what has gone before. But in this instance, HRNSW has let offenders of serious infringements know that heavy penaltys apply for Class 1 and 2 but recognise the third tier for what is. A lower level misdemeanor that can be dealt with more fairly, rather than get smashed with a mandatory 12 months if proven guilty if there are extenuating circumstances.

In regard to an unfair disqualification and getting your time back if proven so, I guess that would have to be sorted out through civil courts. Again, I applaud HRNSW for sticking their nose out and having a go, not folding under pressure to water down the direction they are heading. It would seem the only folk who are unhappy are those not accepting the framework that HRNSW is laying out to operate under. Think about it, NSW is the envy of other racing jurisdictions with the increased/higher prizemoney available. No-ones holding a gun at the owners heads to race here. If they don't like it then maybe the could go to Tassie or SA to race for a pittance.

Again Brad at the time there was "NO" compelling evidence it has only come to light since.

Bill, we are both going to have to start typing slower for each other or pick up the phone. Your point is once again taken, back in 2010 HRNSW took action against two guys for synephrine positives for which has later been proven to be have been most likely ingested naturally through feed (am unaware of the trainers concerned, you may wish to tell us more about the case).That was the past.

We are now operating under new guidelines fom 3 June 2012, not retrospective ones. I would imagine if another synephrine positive(s) occurred in light of its previous history, armed with that now learned knowledge, both partys would have an understanding that there may indeed be a possibility it has been ingested, again prompting tests on feeds, paddocks, river banks etc to exclude it as a defence. I think Triple correctly stated on another topic how the rules were not a watery substance. In pharmacology there are as many proven as there are unproven theories, compounds, interactions etc where there will be many more mistakes, assumptions and incorrect allegations made before it becomes a concise science. The authority needs to keep an open mind on the subject to keep good faith with honest trainers.

Under their new arrangement they are simply stating what their expectations are. Mess with them at your own peril, take your chance in the chemist laboratories and if your story does not line up in the stewards room with the evidence available using todays standards be prepared to take a holiday. They can only adjudicate on current knowledge, not technology that has not been invented. How much more warning can they give someone. If a sign up ahead says there is a speed camera, do you barrel though it or check your speed?

VOR has led the horse (Broncobrad) to water but has failed to make him drink! Sigh sigh sigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

VOR has led the horse (Broncobrad) to water but has failed to make him drink! Sigh sigh sigh

Brenno, if I drink from that contaminated cesspool, I too will become an apologist for those who choose to sail close to the breeze.

I am gonna find it hard to explain how the synephrine came to be in my urine!!!:eek:

(If he comes back and tells me its in my blood, I'm screwed.)

[VVV] Encaptulated rather beautifully there Norman. I've replied below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NormanS

Hi triple. I think that this is approaching two different arguments (maybe even three). 1st argument ( Mark's point ) is that at the moment the rules say if you go positive then you will be outed. Hence the trainer has to manage race engagements. If you use "Phenylbutazone" then don't race within 9 days or what ever the excrection time frame is. [VVV] That's right but clearly the rules are wrong as they stand in this particular area and need to be changed. Similarly, there was a time when the Earth was thought to be flat.

2nd argument - (yours) The Active "therapeutic" time frame being used instead of excretion time frame. [VVV] Right on the money, especially so in light of the above (1st argument).

(Which is a good argument) [VVV] It sure is. Scientifically it Trumps all others too.
I know I keep banging on about Bute...however it is such a perfect example.
It is THE Poster Child substance for the institution of Therapeutic Thresholds.
Not only is it extremely effective, easy to use & widely used...but it is also very easily detected as being present as an overage or otherwise in an excretion only non active level due to it having the rather happy knack of breaking down at a very regular rate over a given timeframe post administration.
Further, the testing method already exists which can quite easily verify that the initial amount given & stated the time of administration is correct or incorrect by way of measuring the metabolites levels at 12/24/36/72/96hrs+ by way of comparing the results to the applicable parameters.

but is reliant on:
3rd argument - Labs ability to give a quantitative as well as qualitative result. Because there are trainers out there that will push their luck and try to race right on the theraputic time frame either "backing up" or treating for effect.
[VVV] Indeed, there's the rusty hook. Thus, as a direct result of the apparently significant shortcomings in the capabilities of the testing method/s employed Trainers get the mushroom come smoke & mirrors version (i.e. the old 'any presence, no matter how small, not because we think it is active but because we are unable to quantify it' ) of that which by rights should have already be in place...that being a quantified test based on the 'therapeutic timeframe' of Bute at a stated dose as opposed to the open ended no matter what you have done you are well and truly rooted 'excretion timeframe'...(borrowing your spot on terminology there Norman)

VVV

It's really simplicity in itself!
It's called 'DRUG FREE RACING' If you want to push the boundaries, wear the consequences. If the rules are enforced correctly then everyone might begin to think that they are racing on a 'level playing field'.
How good is that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Brad

You have missed the point when HRNSW stewards dealt with this matter it was not recognized that this substance could be and most likely was, given the time of year, ingested naturally.

My point is these people would have under the new penalty guidelines been disqualified for a minimum of 12 months ... the clarity of hindsight would say that was not appropriate but how do you give them the time back.

There is no doubt the RAD board and Racing NSW before them have got it right, its HRNSW who got it wrong a couple of years back through no fault of their own as the information was not available.

G'day VOR,
with all due respect to your knowledge on this.....the law/rules/legal arguement have , in my opinion, far too much fluidity already, leading to successful argument for guilty people, which , obviously is counter to the justice most people seek ( most people meaning a majority) .. we live in a 'democracy" supposedly.

The point you are pressing is basically defending people on the very unlikely possibility of accidental dosing, sure it can happen and does! the question is how many cheats do you let go for the convicted innocent??

I personnally believe our legal system/society has gone a little too far in the quest for total justice to the point victims are being treated less equally than perpetrators and I'm definitely not in favour of any further develpment of this particular bullshit.

I, like all honest people am sick to the back teeth of the bullshit legal argument that allows cheats to continue on their way, and yes if I happened to get a positive for my horses consuming something in the paddock, I would be happy to defend myself on the merits of that case.....thats fine and you have my word.
Cheers,
Dan

Lee, that's really simplistic...in and of itself.

Exactly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno

G'day VOR,
with all due respect to your knowledge on this.....the law/rules/legal arguement have , in my opinion, far too much fluidity already, leading to successful argument for guilty people, which , obviously is counter to the justice most people seek ( most people meaning a majority) .. we live in a 'democracy" supposedly.

The point you are pressing is basically defending people on the very unlikely possibility of accidental dosing, sure it can happen and does! the question is how many cheats do you let go for the convicted innocent??

I personnally believe our legal system/society has gone a little too far in the quest for total justice to the point victims are being treated less equally than perpetrators and I'm definitely not in favour of any further develpment of this particular bullshit.

I, like all honest people am sick to the back teeth of the bullshit legal argument that allows cheats to continue on their way, and yes if I happened to get a positive for my horses consuming something in the paddock, I would be happy to defend myself on the merits of that case.....thats fine and you have my word.
Cheers,
Dan

Dan
With the greatest of respect to you I do not think you are being fair dinkum here, you train from a rural property so there is some chance the weed containing Synephrine grows on your property.

My understanding is you have a clean record in relation to prohibited substances... If you got 12 months or 2 years now for a drug like Synephrine in those circumstances you would walk away from the game disgusted because you alone would know you have done NOTHING wrong. other than live near Cessnock on a rural property.

I found out today that a Gallpos Trainer in NSW got 6 months disqualification for Synephrine as well before the powers that be tracked down the true cause.

I have no issues with the spirit of parts one and two of the policy trouble is I think Synephrine may fall into one of them, 2 years for doing nothing wrong.... sorry seems harsh to me.

As VVV continues to say until the testing is better we have to tread carefully with therapeutics and substances that are naturally occurring.