Name and shame

[trish]

[QUOTE=Messenger;34066]So how do we feel about Beautide winning the Len Smith and returning a reading of 43 ug/L. Perfectly legal of course but at least 4 times the Median of all those SWABs[/TE]


http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=23351

All horses running in the Len Smith Mile were in the retention Barn for 24 hrs.

[trish]

At what level does Cobalt become an act of cruelty?
From what I've read it can be quite dangerous.

[Messenger]

Interesting. I know we have had a Cobalt thread before and that some of you guys are well read on it. Does it seem strange that Beautide should have a well above median reading after being in the Detention barn - I thought Cobalt retained after 24hrs may have been minimal

[Lethal]

What I don't quite get, is in Harness Racing, if you infringe the rules relating to illegal administration of certain chemical substances then at the worst you might be labelled a cheat. If you were to do the same thing in the Financial Services industry you would be brought before a court and charged with fraud. Explain to me the difference. In my opinion it is fraud because you are depriving other participants from legally obtaining a benefit.
They are not cheats, they are committing an offence that should be pursued through the legal system not just HRNSW. Until this action is taken the those with the backing (Money) will always be one step ahead of the testing regime.

[teecee]

it's called a Retention barn, not a Detention barn

[Messenger]

it's called a Retention barn, not a Detention barn

Its Detention when you are in the dunce's corner

[Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild]

I noticed Wez Hunter (trainer of Smokin Joey) got a $3500 fine for presenting a horse at the races with a prohibited substance. Wet lettuce justice?

[Messenger]

What I don't quite get, is in Harness Racing, if you infringe the rules relating to illegal administration of certain chemical substances then at the worst you might be labelled a cheat. If you were to do the same thing in the Financial Services industry you would be brought before a court and charged with fraud. Explain to me the difference. In my opinion it is fraud because you are depriving other participants from legally obtaining a benefit.
They are not cheats, they are committing an offence that should be pursued through the legal system not just HRNSW. Until this action is taken the those with the backing (Money) will always be one step ahead of the testing regime.

This may be the only way to clean up racing Lee

[teecee]

Whilst breaches of the prohibited substance rules in sport, and horse racing in particular, can be claimed to be similar to fraud in criminal law it is not regarded as a breach of the criminal law but rather a breach of the rules of the sport.
This is common to all doping cases across most sports and has a lower level of proof.

Criminal fraud requires prosecution proof beyond reasonable doubt. To this end stewards would have to produce undeniable proof of how, when and where the prohibited substance was ingested by the horse.
On the other hand sports doping proof (including current horse racing prohibited substance breaches requires prosecution proof to the civil standard of probability. (51% or more likely than not). To this end stewards need to show that the horse tested positive to a prohibited substance, in all probability it came from an act or omission by the trainer or his/ her staff and the trainer is liable under the strict liability provisions built into the prohibit substance rules.


Also fraud is classified as a criminal term and judgement of fraud can only be by a judge of the criminal courts not a sports tribunal nor panel of stewards.

[jackthepunter]

would be interesting to know the % of swabs that they actullay test. Its alright to say you swab all winners but how many really get all the way though to the end of beeing tested.