Name and shame

[Lethal]

teecee,
The administration of certain drugs can be indictable under the 'Crimes Act', it depends upon their scheduling (S) rating.
This is not a discussion about 'rules in sport' but more about criminal liability under the Crimes Act.
The standard of proof required is not one judged by the sporting judiciary but by the Public Prosecutions Office.
Yes the DPP would prosecute the case at no cost to the relevant sporting body.
"Quick Resolutions' We have plenty of these and it doesn't seem to act as a deterrent, shown by the number of repeat offenders.
If the process started whereby offenders under the 'Crimes Act' previously outlined were prosecuted in the relevant State Courts, what might be the ensuing rate of violation of the regulations?
A significant drop of cases that required investigation by the relevant sporting bodies, I think would be an odds on bet.

[teecee]

teecee,
The administration of certain drugs can be indictable under the 'Crimes Act', it depends upon their scheduling (S) rating.
Simply put.. those drugs do not cover the majority of "drugs" within the prohibited substance regulations.
The Crimes Act does not cover the prohibited substance laws. Accordingly these cases do not go to the courts. They have no jurisdiction.
This is not a discussion about 'rules in sport' but more about criminal liability under the Crimes Act.
Simply put..This is solely about the rules of sport. That is what this forum and specifically this thread is about. There is no criminal liability because administering a prohibited substance to an animal is not a criminal act unless cruelty is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even then prosecution under the Crimes Act is very unlikely as more appropriate statutes exist to deal with animal cruelty.
The standard of proof required is not one judged by the sporting judiciary but by the Public Prosecutions Office.
That is where we will always differ. As explained breaches of the prohibited substance rules are the domain of the sports judiciary or in racing terms the stewards. the standard of proof is definitely the civil standard. This has been tested infinitely. It has also been to the courts.
Yes the DPP would prosecute the case at no cost to the relevant sporting body.
I suspect you are wrong here also. If you are correct why have they not done so. Answer.. It is outside their jurisdiction. The courts in NZ and Australia have already decline jurisdiction in cases of this type. They have acknowledged the sports right to determine judgement.
."Quick Resolutions' We have plenty of these and it doesn't seem to act as a deterrent, shown by the number of repeat offenders.
Quick resolutions and the legal system are not well matched. In harness racing's case just look at the NSW corruption cases.!!
If the process started whereby offenders under the 'Crimes Act' previously outlined were prosecuted in the relevant State Courts, what might be the ensuing rate of violation of the regulations?

A significant drop of cases that required investigation by the relevant sporting bodies, I think would be an odds on bet.

If you think that is the case, let's just have a wee look at what is required at the moment....
Horse is swabbed.
Sample is sent for analysis.
Sample is tested and let's say returns a reading in excess of the threshold. Positive.
Connection advised of test result. Statement taken.
Evidence if any gathered. This is not necessary as analyst's finding is all that's need for the required level of proof for the charge.
Prepare indictment and hearing.
Hold hearing of charges.
Convict and penalise.
Prepare and hold any appeal.

You want to prosecute under the Crimes Act in a court of law...
Add to the above...
further testing of all samples at differing laboratories.
Further gathering of statements.
Horse metabolism testing to determine the individual horse's metabolic state and tolerance/ hold to the substance.
Gathering indisputable evidence of administration opportunity, motive etc.
Gathering material to refute any defence material.
Anything else to meet the much higher level of proof.

By the time they get through just one, there'll be another 10 to deal with. If those with a penchant for giving the stewards extra work or like to put one across their fellow competitors know how much more is needed to get them out of racing they and more like them will be more willing to give it a go..IMO

Ask any steward if your "odds on" bet is realistic.
If yes, you know the next question to ask......Why not????

[Mark Croatto]

teecee,
The administration of certain drugs can be indictable under the 'Crimes Act', it depends upon their scheduling (S) rating.
This is not a discussion about 'rules in sport' but more about criminal liability under the Crimes Act.
The standard of proof required is not one judged by the sporting judiciary but by the Public Prosecutions Office.
Yes the DPP would prosecute the case at no cost to the relevant sporting body.
"Quick Resolutions' We have plenty of these and it doesn't seem to act as a deterrent, shown by the number of repeat offenders.
If the process started whereby offenders under the 'Crimes Act' previously outlined were prosecuted in the relevant State Courts, what might be the ensuing rate of violation of the regulations?
A significant drop of cases that required investigation by the relevant sporting bodies, I think would be an odds on bet.

Lee, NSW Crimes Act 1900 has a specific part relating to cheating, see Part 4ACA Cheating at Gambling; sections 193H through to 193Q. There is no need to prove the type or schedule of drug and carries maximum penalty of 10 years.
The problem however rests with the need to prove intent something that would require considerable investigation given that it only becomes known following a positive test. I agree, prosecuting through the criminal courts would change the mindset of many who are currently prepared to engage in cheating.

Regards

Mark

[teecee]

Lee, NSW Crimes Act 1900 has a specific part relating to cheating, see Part 4ACA Cheating at Gambling; sections 193H through to 193Q. There is no need to prove the type or schedule of drug and carries maximum penalty of 10 years.
The problem however rests with the need to prove intent something that would require considerable investigation given that it only becomes known following a positive test. I agree, prosecuting through the criminal courts would change the mindset of many who are currently prepared to engage in cheating.

Regards

Mark

Are you able to supply a link to those sections of the Act you quote above.
My initial perusal of that act I am unable to locate those sections / clauses you quote.
Cheers

[Mark Croatto]

Are you able to supply a link to those sections of the Act you quote above.
My initial perusal of that act I am unable to locate those sections / clauses you quote.
Cheers

Teecee, can't link directly to the sections but the following will take you to the on-line NSW legislation site. Scroll down the left hand side as the sections are in numerical order

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/ma...40+1900+cd+0+N

Regards

Mark

[teecee]

Teecee, can't link directly to the sections but the following will take you to the on-line NSW legislation site. Scroll down the left hand side as the sections are in numerical order

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/ma...40+1900+cd+0+N

Regards

Mark

Hi Mark...
thank you for your research. The link is very helpful. I was looking at the right Act (in pdf format of the original) but it appears not set out as well.
I couldn't find the parts you mentioned.
Now that I have read those parts quoted by you I have to agree with what you said earlier.
You are also right IMO the hardest task is to prove the intent in order to gain conviction.


Thanks again

[trish]

Lee, NSW Crimes Act 1900 has a specific part relating to cheating, see Part 4ACA Cheating at Gambling; sections 193H through to 193Q. There is no need to prove the type or schedule of drug and carries maximum penalty of 10 years.
The problem however rests with the need to prove intent something that would require considerable investigation given that it only becomes known following a positive test. I agree, prosecuting through the criminal courts would change the mindset of many who are currently prepared to engage in cheating.

Regards

Mark

Hi Mark . I understand what your saying about proving intent but what about those who have suffered a financial loss . Could a betting agency recoup money that they lost . No need to prove intent . The trainer is responsible and the agency has received a loss because of it . Or what about my dollar quinella . How bad has it got when harness racing is there to supply a betting medium and some betting agency's either won't take bets or restrict them

[Longroad]

This is certainly a hot topic but can anyone answer this question:


Why doesn't all of the states in both codes test for Cobalt?

[jackthepunter]

This is certainly a hot topic but can anyone answer this question:


Why doesn't all of the states in both codes test for Cobalt?

probably scared of what they will find,like the vic thoughbred stewards. said they had some high reading never released the trainers names. And now everythings all good problem never existed

[Mark Croatto]

Hi Mark . I understand what your saying about proving intent but what about those who have suffered a financial loss . Could a betting agency recoup money that they lost . No need to prove intent . The trainer is responsible and the agency has received a loss because of it . Or what about my dollar quinella . How bad has it got when harness racing is there to supply a betting medium and some betting agency's either won't take bets or restrict them

Hi Patricia, there are 4 offences listed in Section 2 of the Part; 193N (Engage in Conduct...), 193O (Facilitate conduct...), 193P (Concealing Conduct...) and 193Q (Use of corrupt conduct information...) and for each of them, as is the case for the more general Fraud Offences (192E etc.), the prosecution must prove the accused, at the time of their conduct (administering the drug in this case), administered the drug with the intention of gaining a financial advantage or causing a financial disadvantage. Criminal offences must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, which as I indicated earlier, will involve significant evidence to be proven, and since we generally only find out after a swab has been tested, that level of evidence is going to be very hard to get; it is impossible to prove simply because a swab is positive.

However, the level of evidence that is required could be gained through covert operations, no different to what police do when investigating drug supply. It's simply a matter of will; it would require a complete change in our current approach to dealing with drug cheats

Regards

Mark