Peter Morris Sr returns positive swab

[The Rainmaker]

Just for those who dont know, Morris' suspended sentence came from the use of Aminocaproic Acid. He, along with Ruggari, Waite and Gallagher all received similar minor penalties for presenting their horses to race with the drug in their system.

see : http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=84104

In comparision, Neville Webberly a Harness Racing trainer from Tasmainia was disqualified for 4 years for using the same drug, which was later reduced to 3 years on appeal. Seems those boys got off pretty lightly (as I'd expect from NSW).

The funny thing about Morris' 12 month suspended sentence is that:

29/9/10 - Suspended sentence given for Aminocaproic Acid - Torrential Hannah

27/9/11 - Elevated TC02 - This Boy

Would seem he was only just 3 days off getting that suspended sentence waived.

However if past instances are anything to go by I'd imagine Morris' suspended sentence will be waived anyway, the boys here in NSW are pretty good on going soft on repeat offenders.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Just for those who dont know, Morris' suspended sentence came from the use of Aminocaproic Acid. He, along with Ruggari, Waite and Gallagher all received similar minor penalties for presenting their horses to race with the drug in their system.

see : http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=84104

In comparision, Neville Webberly a Harness Racing trainer from Tasmainia was disqualified for 4 years for using the same drug, which was later reduced to 3 years on appeal. Seems those boys got off pretty lightly (as I'd expect from NSW).

The funny thing about Morris' 12 month suspended sentence is that:

29/9/10 - Suspended sentence given for Aminocaproic Acid - Torrential Hannah

27/9/11 - Elevated TC02 - This Boy

Would seem he was only just 3 days off getting that suspended sentence waived.

However if past instances are anything to go by I'd imagine Morris' suspended sentence will be waived anyway, the boys here in NSW are pretty good on going soft on repeat offenders.

The difficulty HRNSW had with Aminocaproic Acid swabs which is drug very closely related to Tranexamic Acid, is that in NSW there a been successful appeal by Geoff Small that due to the wording of the rules its use did not constitute a breach as its effect was on the blood system which is not covered by the rules.

Most equine rules refer to the blood system as separate to the cardio vascular system, yes seems strange to me too.

My understanding is this defense was either not run or not accepted in Tasmania.

It does not matter taht much because the precedent alreadt existed in NSW and make no bones about it, it muddied the waters.

The same legal team and experts that gave evidence in the Small case were involved in all three Aminocaproic cases in NSW.

[tiny]

VOR thanks for taking the time to explain. As a punter an one time owner of a horse I probably see this through nieve eyes but i'm shore many others also see it the same way. Moris snr and jnr and Thomas 14 months cause they did it before. Butterfield 12 cause that's the going rate. The suspended sentancece was for a substance that wasn't prohibited at the time but is now and Mcintosh gets 4 months because one test was over the other was under so he gets about half the going rate. I came on here because I thought Morris was a bit hard done by but now think Mcintosh was ripped off ( I hope this one gets appealed).

Any way it has gone from clears as mud to straight out weird. But I've seen this weirdness before when we lost a race on protest because the driver hit it with the whip.

It is one weird sport I'll go back in my hole now but thanks for your time.

[Just Saying]

In NSW at the moment if the confirmatory analysis does not confirm it is still deemed positive, it is not a second test but another test of blood collected at the same time.

I ask because I believe, maybe incorrectly, that the confirmatory test confirms the first test by being within it's error range. Not by also being a positive test. May I demonstrate by some totally made up figures. Lets say that 35.0 is the allowed maximum. If a test comes back as 36.2 +/- 1.0 then that is a positive as the possible range is 35.2-37.2. If the second test comes back as 34.9 +/- 1.0 then although that is a "negative" test it actually confirms the first test as its range of 33.9-35.9 overlaps the first test. I also believe that the combined tests narrows the actual result to 35.2-35.9. Still a positive test even if you look at it that way. I don't believe it is simple as first test positive, second test negative, lets just give him a light penalty. In other words the more testing that is done of samples taken at the same time the more precise the test becomes. Again. I may be completely wrong on this. I suspect triplev123 has more accurate information on this topic.

[Thevoiceofreason]

I ask because I believe, maybe incorrectly, that the confirmatory test confirms the first test by being within it's error range. Not by also being a positive test. May I demonstrate by some totally made up figures. Lets say that 35.0 is the allowed maximum. If a test comes back as 36.2 +/- 1.0 then that is a positive as the possible range is 35.2-37.2. If the second test comes back as 34.9 +/- 1.0 then although that is a "negative" test it actually confirms the first test as its range of 33.9-35.9 overlaps the first test. I also believe that the combined tests narrows the actual result to 35.2-35.9. Still a positive test even if you look at it that way. I don't believe it is simple as first test positive, second test negative, lets just give him a light penalty. In other words the more testing that is done of samples taken at the same time the more precise the test becomes. Again. I may be completely wrong on this. I suspect triplev123 has more accurate information on this topic.

My point is the system does not make sense if the first test is say 37.1 and the confirmatory test is is 36.9 in NSW its a positive swab.

However If the first test is 36.9 the second test is not ever done because there is nothing to confirm.

That just seems wrong to me... My question remains why have confirmatory testing if it means nothing.

[Just Saying]

My point is the system does not make sense if the first test is say 37.1 and the confirmatory test is is 36.9 in NSW its a positive swab.

Given the second test is within 1.0 of the first test it confirms the original positive test. You can't simply ignore the original and claim the result is now a negative. Sure if the 36.9 was the first test then the trainer would've been let off but I consider him lucky rather than the trainer in the first scenario poorly treated. The 1.0 is a generous deduction so two readings around 38.0 before the deduction would strongly indicate foul play.

[Just Saying]

You may find this old article interesting. Scroll down to the Donohue information and it presents a case identical to what you are talking about. This time he was given the benefit of the doubt and let off. Though given the new 1.0 error margin he undoubtably presented a horse for racing over the legal limit and could be considered VERY lucky.

http://www.hrv.org.au/vic-industry/i.../?news_id=1026

[PD13]

It seems that most of you that have an opinion on P Morris Snr and this case appear to be so ill informed and take the Stewards findings as Gospel. Dig a bit deeper and you may find that this case is very much a Witch hunt. During the month of August 2011, P Morris Jnr presented 24 runners to Menangle on Tuesday and Saturday meetings with 5 of those runners PRBT. Kerry Ann Turner, from same yard had 2 runners race during this month and both tested. Since Sept 1, P Morris Snr has had 27 runners at Menangle for 12 PRBT and Kerry Ann 7 runners for 4 tested. That totals 34 runners for 16 tested. If you think that Morris is going to bi carb a runner with a nearly 50/50 toss of a coin to risk his racing career, then you're not too bright. W Cable has been Chief Steward at these meetings so, if there is a personality clash or some history between the two, I don't know. Maybe others have thoughts on this.
The stable strike rate is nothing to write home about, so why are so many Morris runners being tetsed?

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there may be a lot more than meets the eye and even some manipulation of the rusults.

[Thevoiceofreason]

It seems that most of you that have an opinion on P Morris Snr and this case appear to be so ill informed and take the Stewards findings as Gospel. Dig a bit deeper and you may find that this case is very much a Witch hunt. During the month of August 2011, P Morris Jnr presented 24 runners to Menangle on Tuesday and Saturday meetings with 5 of those runners PRBT. Kerry Ann Turner, from same yard had 2 runners race during this month and both tested. Since Sept 1, P Morris Snr has had 27 runners at Menangle for 12 PRBT and Kerry Ann 7 runners for 4 tested. That totals 34 runners for 16 tested. If you think that Morris is going to bi carb a runner with a nearly 50/50 toss of a coin to risk his racing career, then you're not too bright. W Cable has been Chief Steward at these meetings so, if there is a personality clash or some history between the two, I don't know. Maybe others have thoughts on this.
The stable strike rate is nothing to write home about, so why are so many Morris runners being tetsed?

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there may be a lot more than meets the eye and even some manipulation of the rusults.

Alex

Total guess work here no knowledge but in NSW if a stable is showing some elevated levels it will be target tested, now you may scoff but I know many Trainers who are target tested and keep bi carbing because they think they have the answer of just how to do it.

This is not to imply that P Morris did this I am talking about other Trainers who I know.

Trouble is TCO2 occurs naturally in a horse bi carb one that is having a higher level naturally as well one day and bye bye.

I know of one trainer had a horse tested 37 times always just under was convinced he had the thing sussed, the same horse nothing different on test 38 went in excess of 39 and bye bye.

He does not bi carb any more.

I am sorry but I do not buy the conspiracy theory and the stewards do not do the testing it is two independent labs they do not make the finding.

You were a also touch selective with the facts, the son went a month or so earlier and we all know how much of the training he was doing.

I like Peter, nice bloke but as grandfather used to say "if you play with matches you will eventually get burned."

[Diesel]

It seems that most of you that have an opinion on P Morris Snr and this case appear to be so ill informed and take the Stewards findings as Gospel. Dig a bit deeper and you may find that this case is very much a Witch hunt. During the month of August 2011, P Morris Jnr presented 24 runners to Menangle on Tuesday and Saturday meetings with 5 of those runners PRBT. Kerry Ann Turner, from same yard had 2 runners race during this month and both tested. Since Sept 1, P Morris Snr has had 27 runners at Menangle for 12 PRBT and Kerry Ann 7 runners for 4 tested. That totals 34 runners for 16 tested. If you think that Morris is going to bi carb a runner with a nearly 50/50 toss of a coin to risk his racing career, then you're not too bright. W Cable has been Chief Steward at these meetings so, if there is a personality clash or some history between the two, I don't know. Maybe others have thoughts on this.
The stable strike rate is nothing to write home about, so why are so many Morris runners being tetsed?

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there may be a lot more than meets the eye and even some manipulation of the rusults.

100% correct Mate.......
Pre-Race blood testing I thought was random...........NOT NOW.