Printable View
Now the B sample has come back positive, making the swab for the ID 11 Final positive not irregular, the lawyer speak begins. For someone with nothing to hide, as Lance said at the start, his lawyer now does all the talking. . . . why, it is not a criminal matter Lance, why so afraid, has the ego deflated?
Or seeking to cover your ass. Sounds like the latter.
More to come . . .
Fingrz, Your apparent delight at the positive from SU is sickening. Lance is the best thing for this sport. He is like Anthony Mundine, love him or hate him he draws press. With that comes money. Harness Racings handling of this matter has been disgraceful. We continue to shoot ourselves in the foot with these things. Can we not learn something from the gallops code? This is a sad case regardless of the truth because the horse is without a doubt an out and out star, with or without DMSO.
So a new poster, although with threads dedicated to the Smoken Up saga, starts a thread about Lance and Smoken Up.Quote:
Originally Posted by fingrzthekooler
There is dislike, distrust and anger at drug users....but then there is hate, bitterness and spitefulness at individuals. Whatever your gripe is I hope you find justice; but you are one sad individual.
imo its going to be very hard to retain the race , its such a shame and harness racing will come off the biggest loser no matter what the outcome is.
What a stupid post. It's a panel of stewards against a single trainer - sometimes things can be said that come across the wrong way and can be used AGAINST ONE to their DETRIMENT. Even a good, honest to God christian could get caught out not explaining themselves properly. Getting a lawyer does NOT mean someone has something to hide. It means they are doing their very best to get their side of the story / evidence across without inadvertently prejudicing themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by fingrzthekooler
It's funny, since doing my law degree I find that how hearings are run in harness racing (perhaps it is the same for the gallops and the dogs, but I'm not sure) go against things such as natural justice and procedural fairness that I have learnt about. *shrugs*
100% agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by montana
It should be remembered that this case is based on NZ rules and hearings will be based on how they do it. Stewards are prosecutors only. Not judge and jury as well like in Oz. Case will be heard and judged by independent panel. Charges issued are likely to be under trainers absolute liability. It will be for him to prove he has done everything possible to ensure horse has raced drug free. Some of the defence strategies I have been reading about lack of security and other shortcomings by officials are not defences to the likely charges. Claims of Not doping the horse is no defence. Most of these cases are based on negligence in ensuring Everything but Everything is done by the trainer to ensure his horse is presented to race drug free. If the trainer can't prove this then he is likely to be found guilty. He will be penalised along with the mandatory disqualification of the horse from the race concerned. Also these cases don't end up in the courts. Kiwi law courts have set many precedents of not interfering in decisions of nz's Judicial Control Authority for Racing. or further reading on how virtually impossible it will be for SU to hold this race and LJ to be exonerated go to www.jca.org.nz for further reading of previous judgements of similar cases. HRNZ v A Hunter earlier this year is a case in point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashing Red
I had no idea, thank you so much. :) I must admit that my comments were in regards to Australian hearings rather than New Zealand ones. I understand that when one gets licensed that they sign up to the bodies rules, but from some people I know and what I have been briefed on the process I don't think its entirely fair. I think an independent panel is an excellent idea, but I think its a shame that trainers / drivers are not given an option to further their cause within the legal system, if they wished... once again thanks for your post, I really appreciate it. :) I will be checking out that website later on too, thanks again! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by teecee
Interesting point.. While Lance will have a right of appeal, should he need it, to the Appeal Authority this will be, most likely based on precedence, as far as he gets as the Law Courts wont be interested.
On the other hand The RACING ACT (nz statute) ensures the decision of the JCA regarding the horse is final. The owners have NO RIGHT of APPEAL to the Appeal Authority nor the Courts. How does your legal mind get round that...
If you own Smoken Up dont spend the stake yet and forget about engaging a lawyer!!!!
Hello Gtrain, your statement that Smoken Up is an out and out star with or without the use of DMSO may or may not be the case,and weather Lance did or didn't use it is not the discussion here. If the use of DSMO had no effect on a horse's performance it would not be a banned substance. It's the fact that it can be used in conjunction with other substances is the main reason it is banned. You get the impression from previous comments that the use of DSMO is completely irrelevant because it has no affect one way or the other; this is not the case.
Bute has no affect on a horse's performance after 12 hours, yet its withdrawl is 7 days. The chemists can tell, by the way the drug breaks down in the body, when it stops having any direct affect, despite it still being present, yet if you give it at 5 days, not 7, and get a positive, you're out for 6 months for something that wouldn't help you in a race anyway!
Being a banned substance in Australia doesn't mean something is performance enhancing... and for the record, there is also a threshold of allowable DMSO in a horse's system. While it can be used in conjunction with other substances, remember the positive here is for DMSO only and nothing else.
Witchazel is also a carrier and there are many others...
Hi Flashing Red, So I suppose the bottom line is you present your horse to race in a "drug free" condition as required. If this is to the contrary you are then charged with failing to do so.
G'day all,
The rank stupidity in this general area is that for a whole host of commonly administered equine maintenance drugs there are no thresholds set below which they are deemed to be pharmacologically inactive and therefore no positive is called/recorded.
You can give a horse Bute 5 days out, have it become totally inactive 4 & 1/2 days out & yet you can still score a positive for it. Ridiculous.
The same goes for a garden variety Penicillen injection as it contains Procaine...a Local anesthetic included to take the edge off the pain when it is injected.
You can give that to a horse and many days later you can still score a positive based on the metabolites of an Opiate being detected.
This clearly absurd situation arises despite the fact there is no way known that the original Procaine component of the Penicillen Antibiotic injection is having any demonstrable level of pharmacological effect whatsoever.
Harness Racing Administration both at a State & National level needs to take a long hard look at this subject...and then get of their respective Cans and do something constructive.
For too long their preferred option has been to throw it in the 'too hard' basket. That is simply not good enough, IMO.
Just think what doctors, lawyers, teachers etc have to do to loose their livelihood. Not just their job, their LIVELIHOOD. Doctors would be gross negligence, as would be solicitors (or misappropriating client funds, etc) - and teachers just about have to molester their children. Is presenting a horse, I ask you, with a substance in its system that has had no affect on it for days, does not give it an advantage in a race, deserving of the same treatment as what it would take in an ordinary profession to be stripped of the rights to one's livelihood? I should think not, IMHO! Take a race off someone, sure - but give them 6 - 12 and for them to loose their livelihood? The gallops and greyhounds do not have as near serious punishments as us. Why should we put up with it? Are you a trainer in the industry? Are you OK that your livelihood can be taken away from substances that are not performance enhancing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty Atom
Hi triplev, I agree,however it would mean that every drug administered with the propensity to return a positive would have to be verified by a vet to safe-guard the trainer. It's probably similar to the US system at the moment. But with America presently forcing a bill through to prevent any race-day medication - Therapeutic or otherwise - I can't see our racing administrators removing their hands from underneath their posterior to do anything in a hurry.
Hi Flashing Red,
Do agree with you;take the race away from the trainer but no suspension on a non performance enhancing drug. It's a lot different from a trainer deliberately drugging a horse to pull off some sought of betting plunge. Although I don't think this happens very often these days it was quite common many years ago.
Was just wondering if a date had been set for Lance's positive.
Being general here to be fair to everyone....Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashing Red
Any trainer who has had a positive showed negligence in presenting a horse with DMSO in its system, misapprropiated somebodies betting funds and molested every other trainer with a horse in the race.
So the doctor stuck an unsterilised knife in somebody. That affects one person and their family. Not a whole sport. Fairly or unfairly for harness racing one trainers actions tarnishes the sport whereas one doctors actions do not tarnish the whole medical profession. Similarly, one solicitor mucking up doesnt give every solicitor a bad name. One teacher touching up somebody doesnt give all schools a bad name. One trainer presenting a horse over the legal limit (whether you agree with it or not) tarnishes the whole sport.
You will also find most professions dont have suspensions but disqualifications.
A trainer may be their own boss at their stables. But really they play under HRNZ/HRA (or whatever the jurisdiction is) rules. They are like an employee of Harness Racing. If I don't work to what is expected of me in my workplace I lose my job because my boss sacks me. If trainers dont work to what is expected of them they get the chop.
That does not still explain the stark comparisons in fines, suspensions and disqualifications between the gallopers / greyhounds and the harness code.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
I completely disagree, and I think its a harness racing mentality. It doesn't even make the newspaper when a greyhound trainer gets a positive most times neither will it with the gallopers. But we have articles and articles, newspaper time, radio time etc even for Joe Blow who trains 5 horses and got a high TC02 or a positive to bute. THAT is what tarnishes out sport, the ridiculous media coverage on positive swabs and our completely unfair and far too lengthy suspensions and disqualifications that are so easily given at a drop of a hat. I think the gallopers are particularly professional in dealing with positives and I wish our code would follow their suit. Our sport comes off worse because our guys get a disqualification where the galloping and greyhound folk get a fine or perhaps a suspension not to mention when a harness trainer gets a positive it is headline news. If a galloping guy gets a positive it does not tarnish the whole galloping code - why should it with the harness code? :(Quote:
Similarly, one solicitor mucking up doesnt give every solicitor a bad name. One teacher touching up somebody doesnt give all schools a bad name. One trainer presenting a horse over the legal limit (whether you agree with it or not) tarnishes the whole sport.
My comments were also in regards to the fact that chemists can tell when a substance no longer has ANY affect on a horse, despite still be present, in some form or another, in their system. Why should someone potentially loose their livelihood when they were gaining no advantage in the race in anyway shape or form? How is that cheating the system, the punters, the other trainers, whoever else you mentioned, if no advantage is actually received? The idiot who decides to use bute the day of a race, well now that is another story - he's a fool and deserves some sort of disqualification. I would regard that as cheating the punters, owners, other trainers etc as you have outlined. If Australian harness racing wants a drug free policy - fair enough, I respect that. But don't hand out the same punishment when the substance in question had no affect on one horse, due to a longer withdrawal, than the other, who was administered a substance (the same or another, doesn't matter etc) close enough that an unfair disadvantage will be obtained in a race. Further, another thing for thought. For years vets have told trainers the withdrawal in Australia for Banamine/Flunixin is 72 hours. They now say 96. Why? Because it took a few people getting positives, who THOUGHT they were playing by the rules, following withdrawal times, to get positives. Testing is getting more advanced which means substances can be detected for a lot longer in a horse's system than they use to be. I do not have a problem with that, I 100% support advances in testing. What I have a problem with is these very people now have a tarnished record yet they have tried to play by the rules - and in some cases loose their licence. Several years ago now, but injectable bute was a 5 day withdrawal - now its 6 and some vets will even say 7. Do you know why? As above! Advances in testing that gave a handful of people positives which inturn increases withdrawal times.
Another thing I also disagree with is the presumption of GUILT with positive swabs. You say a trainer who gets a positive must have been negligent. In our criminal justice system, there is a presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty and one must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (99.9%). The prosecutor must prove guilt and the defendant can raise defences on the balance of probabilities (51%) that the prosecutor must then negate beyond a reasonable doubt (99.9%). This onus is reversed in the racing industry. Why? Why cannot we have the same standard we hold so important in our CJS? Further, the second or horseman's swab - if that comes back clear, I believe that whole matter should be dropped. But I personally know that that has not been the case for a number of people. Sure, their disqualification/suspension/fines may be reduced but they are still punished. Why is that? If one swab is positive and one is negative - why can't the trainer get the benefit of the doubt? Or must everyone be punished "just in case" they really did do something? There is a saying I learnt earlier on in my degree that better 10 guilty men go free than an innocent man go to gaol. Obviously the scenario is slightly different here, no-one is being locked up - but their training record is tarnished.
I am 1000000% in support of pre race and post race testing of every single horse in every race if money was no option. I think 1-2 random post race swabs should be taken from every race in every meeting in Australia. I think guards should be placed on all horses in Group 1 races. I just think we need a better system overall. Since the testing labs can distinguish when substances no longer have an affect on a horse, I think that anyone returning a positive should get a fine - not loose their license like they may very well now for certain substances (personally I don't think anything should happen at all, no advantage was received, but I respect this country's drug free racing policy). I think if second samples come back clear, matters should be dropped immediately.
I'm putting a simley face on now :) in case I came across too strong. :) I dunno, I guess I look at this whole topic personally: I feel, what if I have tried to abide by the rules of Australian Harness Racing and heaven forbid return a swab for something? I could not think of a more devastating blow. A tarnished record, hurt pride, criticism from all and sundry - being labelled a drug cheat. And it might be something as silly as withdrawal times needing to be extended and me being the scapegoat for it :( I felt I had a "near miss" in America - you can give bute up to 24 hours before a race over there. So at 28 - 30 hours out (I always gave myself a buffer to be sure) I gave the horse some bute paste. Now, my vet did not tell me to allow an extra 24 hours for paste as it is metabolised a little slower. Bear in mind, I had only every bought bute past off my vet - I didn't even have a bottle of the injectable stuff. What if I had gone over the allowable threshold and got a positive? The horse ended up winning and was tested - someone commented later on that day "hope that bute past is OK" and I was mortified of their answer when I asked why. I got my vet to ring her boss (the head vet who owned the practice) and he thought because I gave a little less than the normal amount (another 'safety' precaution because I was paranoid) I should be OK. I was, but I woke up sick every morning for 2 weeks worrying about it. It would have only been a fine, I'm not sure if I would have lost the race or not, but that's besides the point. I would have officially had a positive swab - I couldn't think of anything worse! :(
One more thing - to be fair, I must admit I use to be very black and white about the whole positive thing, much as you yourself are Breno and also Mighty Atom (and I was on both of your sides!). Perhaps my degree has clouded my thoughts on the whole process, because I must confess my opinions on drug testing and charges have changed since furthering my education in this field. Perhaps I do overanalyse it, maybe it really is a black and white topic. Regardless, it is something I am very passionate about and I really do have the industry (and its participants) at heart. :)
Going back to my comment of negligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashing Red
It is totally unfair to label every trainer who gets a positive swab as a drug cheat. But this here is negligence. If you are going to give your horse something it is your responsibility to know about it; not expect somebody to tell you.
Im not commenting on the structure of the rules FR. Im commenting on trainers playing within the rules. You are arguing the rules aren't right. I am arguing trainers who get positives and are found guilty aren't playing by the rules.
Even back in the "Dark Age" ( seventies and eighties) bute had a withdrawal period of 144 hours ( six days ).
If I got a bute positive with that scenario I told you about in America, does that mean that I wasn't playing by the rules too? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
How much? 6-8 years ago I know for a fact that people were being tested - and OK with - 10mL at 5 days. I could understand 12mL at 6 days, 12-15mL at 10 days etc. But now I don't know anyone who doesn't give 10mL at LEAST 6 days out???Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty Atom
Sorry I didn't see your bolded comments! In regards to random testing, even if the horse is seventh: why they do this in North America, is because if it is random, one NEVER KNOWS when they will be post-raced TC02ed. It had nipped any sort of bicarb play over there in the bud. Not knowing when someone will get the 2 hours post race is just as good a preventative as everyone being tested - but it is much cheaper! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
I'm also not sure about NZ rules - but I know of the second swab coming back clear in Australia and said trainers were still punished - although reduced to what the usual fare would have been (I'm not comfortable naming names on a public forum or in private, you're going to have to take my word on this one! )
You have made a very good argument re 3 day swabbing/virus. :)
I always used 10 mls 6 days out, but I was always very weary with Bute. I had a horse back in the late 80's - a reasonable type- and being friends with the previous trainer he told me it couldn't race unless it was on bute (he used the sachets ). There was no way I was going to administer bute to a horse racing week by week. He ran a first up 5th ; within 24 hours he had lost muscle conformation and could barely walk. I didn't persevere after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashing Red
G'day all,
I find myself pretty much in complete support for what Flashing has been getting at here.
I can appreciate & understand that there would be a level of cynicism with regard to the honesty of some people...that is always going to be there, regardless of whatever rules are put in place.
Like Flashing and no doubt a good many others, all I'd be wanting to do is have have a thresholds/withdrawl times regime in place that was pragmatic...that ACTUALLY accounted for the point where various substances became pharmacoligically inactive as opposed the current regime where even the slightest metabolite trace can hang a trainer, one that allows a Trainer to have their horses fit, mentally and physically healthy and able to give their best game each and every time it steps out onto the track.
If we all take a step back and take a look at one of, if not THE major of the wider concerns here, which is clearly that of wagering & in particular of offering Punters the most consistent, predictable, handicappable form available...then it is an inescapable fact that, as they stand, our pre-race medication regulations are THE single biggest hurdle to and imposition upon the very thing Harness Racing Administration/the TAB's in this country are trying to achieve.
The medication rules in this country work in direct conflict to the production of consistent form. Like it or not, that is a fact.
The biggest hurdle in overcoming that of course is by & large we're dealing with a whole host of people who basically wouldn't know which end of a horse eats & which end craps.
Few if any of them in the upper echelons of Adminstration could manage to train a rampant Choko Vine over an outdoor dunny with a 50kg bag of Dynamic Lifter and the assistance of the entire crew from Backyard Blitz, let alone train a horse or at the very least appreciate what it takes to do so successfully at any level let alone at the highest.
We're on the verge of a whole new era here in NSW, one where the relative ability of the horses competing week in week out day in day out and the trainers in charge of same is about to be distilled into the greatest Harness Racing show in the Southern Hemisphere. It's one which will see competition increase exponentially and it will go well beyond that which I am sure many people currently appreciate.
Are we sure that we then want to saddle that great leap forward in both product & in competition & so spectacle and therefore wagering product with the same old half-arsed, draconian, ill-conceived & head in the sand medication rules?
Ladies, Gentleman, let's have a measure of PRAGMATISM on this one, please.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, IMO a complete review of the current medication rules & regulations is needed and immediately if not sooner.
Correct. In footy I might accidently give somebody a high shot. It was an honest mistake but I get penalised because I didnt play by the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashing Red
If all drugs were allowed at anytime anywhere for the benefit of the horse I would have no problem with 'drug cheats' but with the rules as they are currently I believe its help your horse and dont race, or race at a 2nd rate potential.
Hi Flashing,
I have 3 degrees and YES it is very black and white. Drug FREE. Simple.