Name and shame

[Lethal]

Section 192 E Crimes Act 1900 NSW.
(2)......or obtains a financial advantage or causes financial disadvantage..........
"Cause" a financial disadvantage means: (a) cause financial disadvantage to another person.....
"Obtain" a financial advantage includes (a) obtain a financial advantage for oneself or another person....(c) keep a financial advantage that one has, whether the financial advantage is permanent or temporary.

What part of the above definitions do not apply to a person administering an illegal substance to a horse, to win a race and therefore obtaining a benefit (prizemoney) to the disadvantage of other persons?

[teecee]

Section 192 E Crimes Act 1900 NSW.
(2)......or obtains a financial advantage or causes financial disadvantage..........
"Cause" a financial disadvantage means: (a) cause financial disadvantage to another person.....
"Obtain" a financial advantage includes (a) obtain a financial advantage for oneself or another person....(c) keep a financial advantage that one has, whether the financial advantage is permanent or temporary.

What part of the above definitions do not apply to a person administering an illegal substance to a horse, to win a race and therefore obtaining a benefit (prizemoney) to the disadvantage of other persons?

All of the above do not apply to the administration of an illegal substance to a horse.. this is simply as I can, the substances are only classified as illegal under the rules of the horse racing or sporting bodies who created and enforce those rules.
The Crime (not) but illegal activity is administration of a prohibited substance. It is not any of the clauses that you quote above.
Again giving an animal a drug judged illegal by a sporting controlling body is the illegal activity only within the rules of the sporting body. Placing the opposition at a disadvantage by that illegal activity does not come into it. There are no rules in any sport that specify not disadvantaging the opposition.

The Crimes Act 1900 NSW and any other Crimes Act are enacted by the Crown by way of the legislature of the state or Country.
It covers crimes by individuals or organisations against the country and its citizens. Drugging a horse is not a crime against a country or its citizens. Accordingly no prosecution under the criminal laws is valid.

Acts against sporting bodies or horse racing authorities are not crimes against society and are not breaches of any Crimes Act of any Parliament.


Also ,let me repeat....
The standard of proof required for a conviction under the Act you quote, or any criminal Act of Australia, is not achieved by the lesser standard of proof used to determine a punishable breach of the sporting and horse racing drug laws.


Under the Crimes Act sections that you quote it would be necessary for the Police (not Stewards) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (not the balance of probabilities) that the trainer or person in charge of the horse or any other person to be charged with the offence, commit the offence with the sole purpose of ensuring getting the prize ahead of any other named/ specified party.


All such prosecutions would by determination in the country's criminal law courts with all the appeal options.
I thought most participants wanted quick resolutions...
If the industry has the funds to go down this path then it has the funds to better improve many other aspects of the industry and the lot of all its participants.

[Messenger]

It is a massive issue just the same TC. It is also a massive waste of industry funds having to keep up with the drug cheats.
If they don't put the resources into controlling Cobalt for example, racing becomes a farce as trainers who love their horses and are not prepared to use it would have very little chance against horses that are not going to tire

Thanks to the dregs of the population, wherever there is money we need policing. I think the way to make policing more thorough (ie not overstretched) is to reduce the number of known/repeat offenders that require special surveillance and therefore I would like to see 5 YR penalties.

The story has always gone that in Singapore the penalty for stealing a car can be death and you can count the number of cars stolen on your fingers - I think we need to apply this rationale to racing's drug cheats

[Richard prior]

It is a massive issue just the same TC. It is also a massive waste of industry funds having to keep up with the drug cheats.
If they don't put the resources into controlling Cobalt for example, racing becomes a farce as trainers who love their horses and are not prepared to use it would have very little chance against horses that are not going to tire

Thanks to the dregs of the population, wherever there is money we need policing. I think the way to make policing more thorough (ie not overstretched) is to reduce the number of known/repeat offenders that require special surveillance and therefore I would like to see 5 YR penalties.

The story has always gone that in Singapore the penalty for stealing a car can be death and you can count the number of cars stolen on your fingers - I think we need to apply this rationale to racing's drug cheats

Along the lines you mentioned Kev, Thief's have their hands chopped off in a particular middle eastern country.

[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

[Messenger]

If you look on the Vic Calendar page you will see an ad with these pics. Not a drug obviously but I surely prefer Then to Now.

[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