Lance Justice just charged over ID11 positive swab

Just in case you might have missed this http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/la...-1226075630677

For how much longer is this debacle going to continue before we have a decision one way or the other?

Its hardly a debarcle :s

There seems to be a strong feeling in NZ harness and steward circles that Smoken Up will definitely be disqualified as winner of ID11. I have mixed feelings either way , although am not a fan of Lance Justice , I am of Smoken Up. It would be a shame , but rules are rules and it seems like the NZ harness top brass have a zero tolerance policy , no matter if there is no evidence who might have administered an illegal drug or where it might have come from.

If it does happen , the placings would then be:

1. I'm Themightyquinn
2. Blacks A Fake
3. Smiling Shard

I'm sure that's not the way that the connections of I'm Themightyquinn want to have their great horse remembered as being the winner of ID11 , but rules are rules.

Anyway , all conjecture for now , till the final rulings are made , then possible legal action , but does not look like there is much room for Justice to manoeuvre legally if it goes against him.

BTW, I backed I'm Themightyquinn in the final :-(

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozninja

There seems to be a strong feeling in NZ harness and steward circles that Smoken Up will definitely be disqualified as winner of ID11. I have mixed feelings either way , although am not a fan of Lance Justice , I am of Smoken Up. It would be a shame , but rules are rules and it seems like the NZ harness top brass have a zero tolerance policy , no matter if there is no evidence who might have administered an illegal drug or where it might have come from.

If it does happen , the placings would then be:

1. I'm Themightyquinn
2. Blacks A Fake
3. Smiling Shard

I'm sure that's not the way that the connections of I'm Themightyquinn want to have their great horse remembered as being the winner of ID11 , but rules are rules.

Anyway , all conjecture for now , till the final rulings are made , then possible legal action , but does not look like there is much room for Justice to manoeuvre legally if it goes against him.

It isn't about if you like them or not. As you said rules are rules. It's about making the correct decision. I'm sure IMTQ connections won't be giving the crown back should they receive it; it will just set up one hell of a clash on ITMQ home soil next season where the defending champ takes on the defending champ!

I just thought of a new fining system. (Cost of the swab + all costs incurred by the authority in bringing you to justice) x 2)) + (punters loss x 2).
Authority costs would include wages, time and money lost on other matters, etc. Punters loss calculated on home TAB. Say 120,000 pool. That means 100'000 in payouts meaning on a $4 shot (the horse that ran 2nd) has $25'000 wagered on it. So punters loss was $75'000 in profit plus $25'000 in what they risked.
That might seem pretty harsh but take into account bets on trifectas, quinellas etc and the away state TABs and other punting sources and the real lose is with the punters who provided a good portion of the prizemoney cheque in the first place. (Cue Flashing Red)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Its hardly a debarcle :s

check your own spelling aussiebreno; it's debacle not debarcle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighty Atom

check your own spelling aussiebreno; it's debacle not debarcle.

Wasn't commenting on spelling but rather the situation being the meaning of dabacle.

Debacle: an unsuccessful ending to a struggle or contest.

In your sentence you used it as a synonym for catastrophic. In fact; your definition does not fit your sentence.
Either way; the thing hasn't been decided yet so can't be a debacle, or as I originally thought you meant a meaning of catastrophic; specifically the handling of the case had been catastrophic (you made mention of how long its been going and questioned when a decision would be made) which I disagree with. Its been through the due procedures to date; perhaps not at a speedy manner; but its not a debacle.

However way you want to look at it , it may end up a debacle for L.J.

It's a thorough disgrace when trainers who have been charged with a positive swab are aloud to continue racing accumulating stakes money along the way until such time the case has been decided. In New Zealand this could be many months.....what a joke.

Hi Mighty Atom

Yes it is a disgrace that it take's to long for the case to be decided, But untill the penalty is handed down why shouldn't they be able to train. It's not the trainers fault that it take's so long for the case to be decided.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighty Atom

It's a thorough disgrace when trainers who have been charged with a positive swab are aloud to continue racing accumulating stakes money along the way until such time the case has been decided. In New Zealand this could be many months.....what a joke.

I tend to agree as it sucks for opposition that they might be racing against a cheat. But Lance or whoever would be laughing all the way to the court room and then the bank if it was later found out they're innocent.

I just can not see any way at all that this will not be going against Justice and for him to lose the ID11 title. Anything less would make the NZ harness authorities a complete laughing stock.

They've got strict zero-tolerance anti-doping rules and limits . If you allow them to be set aside and overridden just because the race is the premier Australasian harness race of the year or who the trainer/driver is , then it will be a very bad look indeed.

In my mind it's case over. The rules have been proven broken by both swab results, no matter how or why or who is to blame, the race was won illegally competing against horses that competed within the stated NZ harness anti-doping rules. The race should be taken away from Justice.

Exclusive of the rights and wrongs of Lance's particular problem...the JCA is THE BIGGEST LAUGHING STOCK of all Ozninja. The NZ system needs a complete overhaul. It's a shambles.
Back on point as far as Lance's particular problem is concerned...purely on a reasonable doubt basis I'd harbour very serious reservations about DMSO prosecutions. I say this not by way of taking Lance's part or anything of the sort, but rather simply because DMSO is such an incredible substance...it is so super soluable and so able to extremely rapidly & very deeply penetrate mamalian skin/membrane that the possibilities for contamination must be absolutely massive. Further still is the fact that the chemical structure of DMSO leaves it with an extremely high boiling point, something up close to 200 degrees C, and if I recall my Chemistry correctly, such substances also tend to have the rather happy knack of hanging around forever, disapating/evaporating very slowly as a result...this as opposed to say a chemical such as Alcohol which has a low boiling point of around 80 degrees C and so disapates/evaporates quickly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

I just thought of a new fining system. (Cost of the swab + all costs incurred by the authority in bringing you to justice) x 2)) + (punters loss x 2).
Authority costs would include wages, time and money lost on other matters, etc. Punters loss calculated on home TAB. Say 120,000 pool. That means 100'000 in payouts meaning on a $4 shot (the horse that ran 2nd) has $25'000 wagered on it. So punters loss was $75'000 in profit plus $25'000 in what they risked.
That might seem pretty harsh but take into account bets on trifectas, quinellas etc and the away state TABs and other punting sources and the real lose is with the punters who provided a good portion of the prizemoney cheque in the first place. (Cue Flashing Red)

Assuming you don't have one, but when you take out your own training license you will sing a different tune. What you proposed is incredibly harsh and is tarring all positives (and trainers that received them) with the same brush. Not even some large scale corporate crimes, that affect a larger number of people than the mugs that bet on harness racing, would receive such a fine! Furthermore, such a proposal does not take into account prior record, the substance itself etc. There should be aggravating and mitigating factors - not "oh you've got a positive, hand over X amount of dollars decided on the costs of legal fees and the amount of money bet on your horse!"

You'll need to come up with something else, Breno :) We're trying to make the system fairer, not stuck in the dark ages! :P

Without knowing specifics of the process...Do you think its fair HRNSW might be paying say 5 people for a 2 days to clear up a case, the person gets found guilty and gets fined $500. In those 2 days HRNSW wages might have been $1000 plus they had to call in a couple of reserve stewards Bathurst and Penrith because said stewards were at the hearing. Is this fair?
Do you think its fair punters lose thousands? Or do you have contempt of their dollar because they're 'mugs'.
100% of the time the answer is no its not fair.
My 'theory' if you like may not be perfect but there are instances where it would be absolutely fair.

G'day Breno,

I think what we need in place here in Oz are rules that are in keeping with the NRL penalties system.
I'm not a football fan by any means, I'd choose to smash by Jatz Crackers between a brick and a farrier's anvil rather than sit down and watch a game of Rugby League, but I am a fan of their judiciary come regulatory set up.
They have over-arching signed code of conduct agreements in place, there are discounts for early guilty pleas and for those who stand their ground & are then found guilty there mandatory minimum sentences for various transgressions etc. Backing it all up is the fact that it is ALL tied in to initially being granted permission to play.
I can't see any reason why we cannot put something similar in place for all participants which is directly tied to the Licences of owners, strappers, trainers, drivers etc. Licences need to be such that for the really heinous end of the transgression spectrum they can be revoked at any time or otherwise the controlling body can simply refuse to renew them if the person concerned is deemed to be undesirable.
Of course, my greatest and basically only fear under such a system is that the reason/s why those kinds of rules/regulations were put in place may somehow get itself lost in the wash...ala the change of tactics rules...with participants falling victim to overtly harsh, irregular & incorrect interpretations thereof.
The whole thing would have to be drafted in such a way as to be so black and white that there would be no NO WIGGLE ROOM LEFT for Participant or Regulatory Authority, both parties being bound by their rights and responsibilities as laid out & mutually agreed upon from the outset.

Well put triple. Also agree that here in NZ the JCA are a joke and things need changed. I myself are currently under suspension because at a trial a few weeks ago I was told incorrectly by the starter where to line up. I called the starter, something begining with the letter F and ending with WIT.....Well you'd think I had something to do with planning 9/11.
However I took my penalty and unlike so many, I didn't appeal. Having said that.....I had no right of appeal :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

G'day Breno,

I think what we need in place here in Oz are rules that are in keeping with the NRL penalties system.
I'm not a football fan by any means, I'd choose to smash by Jatz Crackers between a brick and a farrier's anvil rather than sit down and watch a game of Rugby League, but I am a fan of their judiciary come regulatory set up.
They have over-arching signed code of conduct agreements in place, there are discounts for early guilty pleas and for those who stand their ground & are then found guilty there mandatory minimum sentences for various transgressions etc. Backing it all up is the fact that it is ALL tied in to initially being granted permission to play.
I can't see any reason why we cannot put something similar in place for all participants which is directly tied to the Licences of owners, strappers, trainers, drivers etc. Licences need to be such that for the really heinous end of the transgression spectrum they can be revoked at any time or otherwise the controlling body can simply refuse to renew them if the person concerned is deemed to be undesirable.
Of course, my greatest and basically only fear under such a system is that the reason/s why those kinds of rules/regulations were put in place may somehow get itself lost in the wash...ala the change of tactics rules...with participants falling victim to overtly harsh, irregular & incorrect interpretations thereof.
The whole thing would have to be drafted in such a way as to be so black and white that there would be no NO WIGGLE ROOM LEFT for Participant or Regulatory Authority, both parties being bound by their rights and responsibilities as laid out & mutually agreed upon from the outset.

I like it VVV

sounds all common sense to me!! hope the officials are reading and taking note of this!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

G'day Breno,

I think what we need in place here in Oz are rules that are in keeping with the NRL penalties system.
I'm not a football fan by any means, I'd choose to smash by Jatz Crackers between a brick and a farrier's anvil rather than sit down and watch a game of Rugby League, but I am a fan of their judiciary come regulatory set up.
They have over-arching signed code of conduct agreements in place, there are discounts for early guilty pleas and for those who stand their ground & are then found guilty there mandatory minimum sentences for various transgressions etc. Backing it all up is the fact that it is ALL tied in to initially being granted permission to play.
I can't see any reason why we cannot put something similar in place for all participants which is directly tied to the Licences of owners, strappers, trainers, drivers etc. Licences need to be such that for the really heinous end of the transgression spectrum they can be revoked at any time or otherwise the controlling body can simply refuse to renew them if the person concerned is deemed to be undesirable.
Of course, my greatest and basically only fear under such a system is that the reason/s why those kinds of rules/regulations were put in place may somehow get itself lost in the wash...ala the change of tactics rules...with participants falling victim to overtly harsh, irregular & incorrect interpretations thereof.
The whole thing would have to be drafted in such a way as to be so black and white that there would be no NO WIGGLE ROOM LEFT for Participant or Regulatory Authority, both parties being bound by their rights and responsibilities as laid out & mutually agreed upon from the outset.

Nice proposal :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Without knowing specifics of the process...Do you think its fair HRNSW might be paying say 5 people for a 2 days to clear up a case, the person gets found guilty and gets fined $500. In those 2 days HRNSW wages might have been $1000 plus they had to call in a couple of reserve stewards Bathurst and Penrith because said stewards were at the hearing. Is this fair?
Do you think its fair punters lose thousands? Or do you have contempt of their dollar because they're 'mugs'.
100% of the time the answer is no its not fair.
My 'theory' if you like may not be perfect but there are instances where it would be absolutely fair.

There are instances where it would be absolutely fair, for example in the most serious and intentional of infractions, however it wouldn't be fair if applied like a blanket over the whole industry, that is all. And then you have that grey area of discretion which can provide just outcomes but also very harsh ones. I quite like Triple V's proposal. It takes into account the whole aggravating / mitigating factors I was taking about, something that a blanket rule would not. Further, it allows discretion but regulated discretion, not nilly willy... I'm all for discretion but not the amount of discretion we are seeing at the moment (for example, chance of tactics).