Reply With QuoteStop trying to find excuses. It's pretty childish.
I found an interesting remark after looking at the Decision (teecee made me do it) in 4.22 in part it states
"Ms Thomas' cross examination was also directed to the failure of Mr George or Mr Carmichael to take steps to preserve the blood sample taken from "Smoken Up" at 8:48 pm on 8 April 2011 for analysis in order to measure the accuracy of the results of the urine sample taken from the horse later than evening at 10:10 pm. Mr George said that he would have expected Mr Carmichael to have been aware a blood sample had been taken from "Smoken Up" at that time but was not able to explain why Mr Carmichael did not check to see that the blood sample was available for analysis after becoming aware of the DMSO level found in the urine sample taken from "Smoken Up" following the completion of the race on 8 April 2011."
Is this guy serious, it was the Inter Final and all runners get blood taken from G1 races. Just another example of the "Fairness" under their system. Cameron George is the Boss, he should have made sure it was done. Oh that's right its the trainers fault.
Stop trying to find excuses. It's pretty childish.
Aussiebreno, maybe you are mistaking my thoughts on this.
It's the way the trainers are treated under NZ rules. No matter what the trainer does it is extremely hard for him to defend himself. At every turn when an error or mistake is made it seems that the current rules leave the "Judges" no room to move. The wrong number on the swab card was dismissed as just an error.
If you were done for Drink Driving and the charge sheet had the wrong number on it, how far would your case go?
The absolute rule is totally unfair and could end up killing the industry in NZ. Surely under any Law both parties must be given a fair go to get to the truth. In this case no one (either side) can say how or when the DMSO got into the horse.The RIU doen't need to and anything the trainer puts up is dismissed.....what if there is a problem with the testing system and the pre-race blood could have helped in establishing a starting point reading. If the pre-race blood was over the limit well case over, he had it in him.
I think the industry must take a close look at the rules for everyones sake.They are stacked in the RIU's favour which can't be healthy for the industry.
Trainers know this and that's why Teecee said "it's very rare to have a not guilty plea"
Yeah maybe I'd try and get out of the drink driving charge, but then again maybe not. But still doesn't change that I was drink driving and I doubt I'd get a 5 page thread with people trying to defend me.Originally Posted by p plater
The law according to some posters in here:
Proof must be through all of the following: CCTV, eye witnesses, DNA evidence, admission of guilt etc. Also; if the policeman dares stutter or say the Miranda warning wrong then all charges should be dropped.
Aussiebreno, if you ever get done let us know I'll start a thread for you.
Interesting you mention CCTV. Did you know for some unexplained reason the CCTV on the stables was not turned on that night.
This is obviously an unusual case in that DMSO is so quickly absorbed into the system (minutes) and was not tested for in the heats. Heat samples test after final testing.
As part of my arguement for a change to the rules, consider this and for a moment put yourself in the trainers shoes.
This relates to the Control sample.
At 4.14 Mr Gardner who did the initial contol testing said in part "Mr Gardner also said analyses he carried out on the control sample revealed the presence of trace levels of DMSO which he said was possibly explained either by DMSO being present in the control sample itself or as a result of the testing process he carried out. He said due to the quantity being a trace level only it was not possible to quantify the amount of DMSO in the control sample."
Then his boss Dr Beresford said in part at 4.18 (1) "the control sample associated with the urine sample taken from "Smoken Up" on 8 April 2011 was not sent to the Racing Science Centre in Queensland with the reserve sample because it was not the practice to do so nor was there any requirement to do so"
How fair is that for a defence.........change the rules....for a start have 2 samples of the Control taken.
They admit a problem with contamination of the Control but no referee sample testing.
That is assuming you WERE drink driving - what if you weren't? There have been several issues raised in the Smoken Up case that cast doubt on whether the DMSO was present in the horse during the race or, even worse, contamination issues where there is an argument that the horse didn't have DMSO in his system, period. I know you say this is opinion, but if you want to say that, isn't everything opinion? Why shouldn't trainers be given the benefit of the doubt?
One of my lecturers defended a client in a speeding charge. The client was adamant that he wasn't speeding (it was something like 30km over the limit). He was caught with one of those speed camera guns. They chose to dispute the matter in court and when requesting the repairs and maintenance done on said camera, it was a lot higher than what was the average for that make and model. The client got off on those charges. Heck he could have been speeding but there was a good chance that at the time the machine was faulty. The client was given the benefit of the doubt.
In our legal system, defendants are innocent until proven guilty - and it is like that for a reason. In the racing system, participants are guilty until proven innocent - I don't know about you but that really doesn't sit well with me at all. There is also a well known legal adage "better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man charged" - that is another principle that our legal system is based on. I can't say definitely, but I would think that the Smoken Up camp would of had to prove their case on the balance of probabilities (51% or more) - this is the case in Australia, of what I have gathered from the judgements I have read. Everything I have read, to me, suggests at least a 51% chance that either the DMSO became present in the horse AFTER the race or the DMSO was not even there AT ALL and it is a contamination issue. Basically what has to be proven is that the arguments put forward by the defence were a more likely possibility, even if just by a mere 1%, than the arguments put forward by the prosecutors.
I am not 100% sure how the standard of proof is applied/interrelated with cases in New Zealand (or indeed what the standard is, ie balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt), but surely Tee Cee could enlighten us on that.
I would go as far to say if this case were heard in Australia that charges would have been dismissed. I would go as far to say if this case were heard in an actual NZ Court, should/if it ever get there, these charges would also have a good chance of being dismissed. I probably sound like a broken record and should give up on this cause. This outcome, it would not matter to me if this was a maiden or Interdom final, principles are still the same. You probably remember that song and dance I threw about that NZ trainer loosing a race due to that ranitidine (and if I remember correctly, being personally fined due to something completely out of his control).
...ok.... said my piece, really should take a step back now!!
One thing is for sure, this saga is going to drag on for a very long time with lots of legal action ! It's a disgrace that the decision has taken so long and we are still waiting for the penalty's to be decided on. Its dragging our sport through the mud. Lets hope it leads to tighter and better procedures. The only winners here will be lawyers !
Don't die wondering !
Another possible standard has been brought to my attention that could have possibly been used due to the magnitude of this case.... great reading (first section of article) at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2003/13.html...
From what P Plater said I took it to say I was guilty however the number on the charge sheet was wrong. If we start arguing fake cases I think we are in trouble lol!That is assuming you WERE drink driving - what if you weren't? There have been several issues raised in the Smoken Up case that cast doubt on whether the DMSO was present in the horse during the race or, even worse, contamination issues where there is an argument that the horse didn't have DMSO in his system, period. I know you say this is opinion, but if you want to say that, isn't everything opinion? Why shouldn't trainers be given the benefit of the doubt?
One of my lecturers defended a client in a speeding charge. The client was adamant that he wasn't speeding (it was something like 30km over the limit). He was caught with one of those speed camera guns. They chose to dispute the matter in court and when requesting the repairs and maintenance done on said camera, it was a lot higher than what was the average for that make and model. The client got off on those charges. Heck he could have been speeding but there was a good chance that at the time the machine was faulty. The client was given the benefit of the doubt.
In our legal system, defendants are innocent until proven guilty - and it is like that for a reason. In the racing system, participants are guilty until proven innocent - I don't know about you but that really doesn't sit well with me at all. There is also a well known legal adage "better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man charged" - that is another principle that our legal system is based on. I can't say definitely, but I would think that the Smoken Up camp would of had to prove their case on the balance of probabilities (51% or more) - this is the case in Australia, of what I have gathered from the judgements I have read. Everything I have read, to me, suggests at least a 51% chance that either the DMSO became present in the horse AFTER the race or the DMSO was not even there AT ALL and it is a contamination issue. Basically what has to be proven is that the arguments put forward by the defence were a more likely possibility, even if just by a mere 1%, than the arguments put forward by the prosecutors.
I am not 100% sure how the standard of proof is applied/interrelated with cases in New Zealand (or indeed what the standard is, ie balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt), but surely Tee Cee could enlighten us on that.
I would go as far to say if this case were heard in Australia that charges would have been dismissed. I would go as far to say if this case were heard in an actual NZ Court, should/if it ever get there, these charges would also have a good chance of being dismissed. I probably sound like a broken record and should give up on this cause. This outcome, it would not matter to me if this was a maiden or Interdom final, principles are still the same. You probably remember that song and dance I threw about that NZ trainer loosing a race due to that ranitidine (and if I remember correctly, being personally fined due to something completely out of his control).
...ok.... said my piece, really should take a step back now!!
Maybe what you are saying Flashing would be better said in the context of "Hey; this system isn't right and it should be changed so this doesn't happen in the future." rather than "This system isn't right; Smoken Up (or any horse) shouldn't have got the race taken off him." Because that's definetely right. It's plain to see it isn't perfect.
On your legal saying... I understand it may be a popular saying and many abide by it. But I don't particularly agree with it. Under that saying 10 victims miss out on a sense of justice. So 10 people/set of people suffer wrongly. Under the alternative (which is get 11 crims in jail at the risk of 1 being innocent) there is only 1 victim. Thats 10 victims under the popular saying but only 1 victim under the alternative. In a shitty country eg Iraq under Hussein you might get thousands and thousands of innocent people go to jail but in a country as good as Australia that won't happen. And if it does there are probably many other issues to be worried about.
Yes.
Also in regards to that old legal adage... I had to watch an older video on America about the death penalty and the numerous cases (especially pre-DNA era) of completely innocent people being executed (and subsequently exonerated for the crime after their death). The looks of some of their families interviewed in the video STILL haunt me. A bit of a moot point really for Australia, but even large fines or gaol time... could not think of anything worse than being punished for something that I didn't do. :-/
Posting Permissions