Holy Shit

[Triple V]

I've always understood that the stated withholding periods were recommened as opposed to being a violation if you were to go inside them? Maybe it's different in NY?
They've wanted his scalp for a while now and so far it looks like they've found a somewhat ingenious way of giving themselves a shot at getting it.
In saying that, I'm not entirely comfortable with it. Retrospective prosecution based not on any evidential swabs but instead on a whole series of Vet records? Geeze, there's something that's more than a little slippery slope about this for mine. That's like getting a DUI charge this morning despite being stone cold sober simply because 3 days ago you had a couple of bottles of Red with dinner.

[dizzy]

I don't think they are working on withholding periods over there Jamie moreso on published prohibition periods that have been violated. IE the rules state that particular substances can not be administered with in a specified period before a race but in this case the veterinarians record indicate multiple violations of these rules. In a single instance you could possibly raise doubt about the accuracy of the vet's records/invoices but are you seriously going to believe the vets records were wrong 1700 times. Its an offence no doubt for mine, calculated systemic cheating no less. Withholding periods for drug free racing are a different kettle of fish

Our rules prohibit "a person" (and that is a problem in itself because I believe in some states it is an offence under veterinary practice regulations for a lay person to stomach tube a horse) to administer anything via a stomach tube within 48hrs of a race, so for mine if an invoice from a vet indicated that they had administered something/anything, even water, to a horse within that 48 hour period prior to it racing via stomach tube then that would be evidence of a trainer committing an offence. I'd have no problem with a trainer being charged accordingly.

[Triple V]

G'day Dot,
I'm still very uncomfortable with the use of Vet records instead of Positive Tests. It seems a bit dodgy for mine. Maybe the rules are vastly different up there, I'm not familiar with them, and maybe they state that violating the former is = to scoring the latter?
Some of the stuff he has been jammed for is pretty pedestrian on the face of it but geeze, some of the others are a bit exotic to say the least. It makes me wonder what their specific use/s are/were.

[dizzy]

Jamie I don't think its relevant what the drugs are, the rules are that they cant be administered within a defined time frame prior to racing and multiple records indicate systemic breach of the rules. Stomach tubing here with only water within 48 hours of a race is a breach of the rules but is never going to return a positive swab so does that make it ok?

[Starship Captain]

After reading more on this, it looks like they just want him gone from their tracks, thats fair enough. He win's alot and that upsets alot of people.wtf

When the results of this were published, what are the chances that vets and trainers all around the world were calling each other to make certain that they
all had their shit straight.

[Danno]

After reading more on this, it looks like they just want him gone from their tracks, thats fair enough. He win's alot and that upsets alot of people.wtf

When the results of this were published, what are the chances that vets and trainers all around the world were calling each other to make certain that they
all had their shit straight.

Jason,
you have mentioned a few times on this forum where your prioritys are.....AS LONG AS THEY ARE WINNING, you don't give a flying how that happens.!!!!

I don't think it's important for all the people on the periphery to "get their shit straight", more like if "you walk a straight line, then you and all those about you have no fear".

Only you will know if some bells rang there mate, for your sake I hope they did.
Cheers,
Dan

[Tangles]

Jason,
you have mentioned a few times on this forum where your prioritys are.....AS LONG AS THEY ARE WINNING, you don't give a flying how that happens.!!!!

I don't think it's important for all the people on the periphery to "get their shit straight", more like if "you walk a straight line, then you and all those about you have no fear".

Only you will know if some bells rang there mate, for your sake I hope they did.
Cheers,
Dan

After reading what has happened one thing is glaringly obvious:

#1.All administrations occurred under veterinary advice
#2.Mr Pana Horses did not return apostive swab
#3.They have charged him with time violations in regard to administrations of medications.

The problem with this is that once you begin prosecuting people for having medications administered by veterinarians then people will work outside supervised medical administrations. i.e no records and more risk to the horse and other competitors.

A very slippery slope indeed.

[Danno]

After reading what has happened one thing is glaringly obvious:

#1.All administrations occurred under veterinary advice
#2.Mr Pana Horses did not return apostive swab
#3.They have charged him with time violations in regard to administrations of medications.

The problem with this is that once you begin prosecuting people for having medications administered by veterinarians then people will work outside supervised medical administrations. i.e no records and more risk to the horse and other competitors.

A very slippery slope indeed.

G'day MJ,
just because the drugs were administered by a Vet, doesn't mean an offence not has occurred..the offence is administration within the permitted timeframe regardless of whether a vet, a registered nurse, a homeless person or a bloody sleepwalker duly administerd the substance.

The fact is a person has given evidence that the administration of said substances actually took place... enter legal arguement and the weighing up of ALL evidence and then a decison on guilt will be made.

I can't think for the life of me why one would need a positive swab result to be the only determining factor on whether someone was guilty of drugging a horse??.

I mean, I know we have come to rely on positive swabs as some burden of proof, but surely our eyes have not become so closed to suggest this is the only means of proof??

I dont think its a slippery slope at all! Another means of identifying cheats is welcome as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pretty sure most honest people would agree.

Cheers,
Dan

[Starship Captain]

Thanks for the advice Dan,


Only continued fine weather here, with bright sunny day's ahead

[Tangles]

G'day MJ,
just because the drugs were administered by a Vet, doesn't mean an offence not has occurred..the offence is administration within the permitted timeframe regardless of whether a vet, a registered nurse, a homeless person or a bloody sleepwalker duly administerd the substance.

The fact is a person has given evidence that the administration of said substances actually took place... enter legal arguement and the weighing up of ALL evidence and then a decison on guilt will be made.

I can't think for the life of me why one would need a positive swab result to be the only determining factor on whether someone was guilty of drugging a horse??.
I mean, I know we have come to rely on positive swabs as some burden of proof, but surely our eyes have not become so closed to suggest this is the only means of proof??

I dont think its a slippery slope at all! Another means of identifying cheats is welcome as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pretty sure most honest people would agree.

Cheers,
Dan

Dan you have missed the point totally. People as human nature is, will and do work outside the rules but by summoning veterinary records to prosecute then people will cease using vets and a dangerous spiral will begin. No veterinary supervision means greater chance of abuse and harm to the animals and industry you wish to protect.
Stable inspections and detention barns would be a safer option than to breaching the client/vet privacy.